Transit detention must relate to the intercepted consignment only; suspicion over earlier transactions cannot justify continued seizure.

Detention of a goods vehicle and transported goods under section 28-A(3B) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is lawful only when further verification is needed for the very consignment intercepted or for a detected contravention relating to that transaction. The power cannot be extended to investigate suspected irregularities in earlier, unrelated dealings, nor can it justify prolonged detention where the accompanying documents are not shown to be defective. Because the respondents relied on suspicions about prior transactions rather than any defect in the intercepted consignment's documents, the continued detention had no legal basis and was an unreasonable interference with business. The detention and extension endorsements were therefore quashed and release of the vehicles and goods was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention of the goods vehicle and the transported goods under section 28-A(3B) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was lawful when the supporting documents for the intercepted consignment were not shown to be defective and the real apprehension related to alleged irregularities in earlier transactions.

Analysis: Section 28-A(3B) is an enabling provision permitting detention only where further verification is necessary regarding the particulars accompanying the very consignment under transit or where verification of a detected contravention is required. The power cannot be used to keep the vehicle detained indefinitely or to investigate unrelated earlier transactions. Section 28-A(4) contemplates penalty only in respect of the transaction under scrutiny, and the detention under section 28-A(3B) is only an aid to that contemplated action. Since the respondents did not dispute the genuineness of the documents accompanying the intercepted goods and relied instead on suspicions about prior dealings, the continued detention lacked legal basis and amounted to unreasonable interference with the petitioner's business.

Conclusion: The detention and extension endorsements were not sustainable under section 28-A(3B) and were quashed; release of the vehicles and goods was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Detention of goods in transit under section 28-A(3B) can be justified only for verification of the very transaction intercepted and cannot be prolonged on the basis of suspected irregularities in earlier transactions unrelated to the consignment under detention.

---