Verification of high-sea sale genuineness justified detention, and an effective statutory revision remedy barred writ interference.

Detention of goods for verification of the genuineness of high-sea sale transactions was treated as a legitimate exercise where the Revenue needed a fair opportunity to examine supporting documents, and the detention orders were not quashed. After scrutiny of the records, final demands of tax and compounding fee had been issued, so the petitioners were required to pursue the effective statutory revision remedy before the Deputy Commissioner under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In view of that alternate remedy, the Tribunal declined interference with the impugned notices and dismissed the original petitions, leaving liberty to seek revision where available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention orders passed for verification of the genuineness of high-sea sale transactions were liable to be quashed. (ii) Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory revision remedy under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue (i): Whether the detention orders passed for verification of the genuineness of high-sea sale transactions were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The goods were detained to verify the genuineness of the transactions with reference to the relevant documents concerning high-sea sales. The Tribunal treated such verification as a legitimate exercise and followed its earlier view that the Revenue was entitled to a fair opportunity to examine the authenticity of the transactions.

Conclusion: The detention orders were not liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory revision remedy under section 33 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: After scrutiny of the available records, final notices of demand of tax and compounding fee had been issued. The Tribunal held that the petitioners had an effective statutory remedy by way of revision before the Deputy Commissioner concerned and, in view of that remedy, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned notices.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the revision remedy under section 33.

Final Conclusion: The original petitions challenging the detention notices were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory revision remedy where available.

Ratio Decidendi: Detention of goods for bona fide verification of the genuineness of transactions will not be interfered with in writ proceedings where an effective statutory revision remedy is available.

---