Limits on seizure powers: transporter had standing, but under-invoicing and alleged fake consignor did not justify confiscation.

A transporter brought within the statutory definition was treated as entitled to challenge seizure of goods in his possession, because the governing Act did not bar such relief. On the merits, the Tribunal held that the interception and verification power under section 68 and rule 212(9) was limited to checking compliance with prescribed transport conditions and the particulars in the way-bill. It did not authorise seizure merely because the invoice value appeared below market value, and an alleged fake or non-existent consignor could not justify seizure absent express statutory authority. The seizure and penalty orders were therefore held illegal and invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transporter had locus standi to maintain the application before the Tribunal. (ii) Whether the seizure and penalty action were lawful when based on under-invoicing and alleged non-existence of the consignor.

Issue (i): Whether the transporter had locus standi to maintain the application before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The transporter was brought into the penalty proceeding and was within the statutory definition of a transporter. The governing Act did not bar such a person from seeking relief against seizure of goods from his possession. The Tribunal therefore treated the applicant as a person entitled to challenge the seizure.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected and the application was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure and penalty action were lawful when based on under-invoicing and alleged non-existence of the consignor.

Analysis: The power under section 68 and rule 212(9) was confined to transport in accordance with prescribed conditions and to verification of the description, quantity, weight or value of the goods with the accompanying way-bill. The Tribunal held that this provision did not authorise seizure merely because the invoice value appeared lower than market value. Applying the principle that a taxing statute must be construed strictly and that nothing can be added by intendment, the Tribunal also held that an alleged fake or non-existent consignor, by itself, did not supply a valid ground for seizure where no statutory provision so permitted. The cited authority on market-value scrutiny under a different statute was found inapplicable.

Conclusion: The seizure and penalty orders were illegal and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The statutory power of interception and verification could not be expanded into a power to seize goods on the grounds relied upon by the revenue, and the impugned action was set aside in full.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory provision, check-post authorities cannot seize goods on the ground of under-invoicing or presumed falsity of documents beyond the limited verification authorised by the relevant transport and way-bill provisions.

---