Transit interception and seizure may stand on defective documents, but maximum penalty needs separate justification on quantum.

Transit interception was upheld where the transporter lacked proper documents, even though the goods were not notified under section 45A, because section 45D permitted interception and the linked seizure machinery under section 45A could then operate. The declaration and transit papers were treated as false or misleading, since the movement description changed, the stated destination and consignee were not satisfactorily proved, and the statutory presumption of attempted evasion was attracted. The maximum penalty, however, required separate justification on quantum; absent recorded reasons for choosing the highest penalty, fresh consideration and hearing were necessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the check-post action, seizure and penalty could be sustained where the goods were not notified under section 45A but were intercepted in transit under section 45D; (ii) whether the declaration and transit documents were false or misleading so as to attract the statutory presumption of attempted tax evasion; and (iii) whether the maximum penalty could be imposed without recording reasons as to quantum.

Issue (i): whether the check-post action, seizure and penalty could be sustained where the goods were not notified under section 45A but were intercepted in transit under section 45D.

Analysis: The transit provision empowered interception when the transporter was not carrying proper documents or the documents were not in order, and the reference to section 45A operated as the machinery for further action after such interception. The substantive power to proceed was therefore not confined to notified goods alone. Once satisfaction was reached under section 45D, recourse to the consequences under section 45A was permissible.

Conclusion: The action taken by the authorities was legally sustainable, and this issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the declaration and transit documents were false or misleading so as to attract the statutory presumption of attempted tax evasion.

Analysis: The declaration described the movement as stock transfer, later shifted to lease, and the claimed destination and consignee details were not satisfactorily established. The record did not show any branch at the destination, and the disclosed particulars were found to be unreliable. On these facts, the statutory presumption under the seizure provision was attracted.

Conclusion: The declaration was treated as false or misleading, and the finding on attempted evasion stands against the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the maximum penalty could be imposed without recording reasons as to quantum.

Analysis: Although the revisional authority gave reasons for imposing penalty, no reasons were recorded for selecting the maximum penalty. The quantum of penalty was therefore required to be reconsidered after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The maximum penalty could not be sustained without fresh consideration of the quantum, and this issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the detention, seizure and liability to penalty fails, but the penalty amount requires reconsideration by the revisional authority after hearing the appellant, with interim protection against recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: A transporter intercepted in transit for defective or absent documents may be proceeded against under the seizure machinery linked to check-post enforcement, but the authority must separately justify the quantum when imposing the maximum penalty.

---