Security demand under transit pass provisions requires prior liability determination; liability cannot be shifted to another carrier by implication.

Security under section 28AA(7) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be demanded only from a person whose liability had already been actually determined under section 28AA(4). The deeming fiction in section 28AA(4) applied only where the transit pass was not delivered at the exit point, and the amended Explanation enlarging "owner" to include a hired vehicle carrier did not permit liability to be shifted by implication from one person to another. Because the earlier assessment fastened liability only on a different person and not on the petitioner, detention of the petitioner's vehicle and goods and the demand for security were unauthorised and invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents could detain the petitioner's vehicle and goods and insist upon security for an earlier tax liability determined against another person under section 28AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 28AA(4) creates a deeming fiction only where the driver or person-in-charge fails to deliver the transit pass at the exit point, in which event tax may be assessed on the owner of the vehicle. Section 28AA(7) permits demand of security only from the owner of the vehicle who has already been assessed under sub-section (4) and who is again carrying taxable goods through the State. The Explanation, even after amendment, enlarges the expression "owner" to include both the vehicle owner and the carrier where the vehicle is hired, but that enlargement supports joint and several liability only when such liability is actually determined against the concerned person. The earlier order relied upon by the respondents fastened liability only on Palanivel and did not assess or determine liability against M/s. Roshan Freight Carriers. Liability could not be transferred to the petitioner by implication or analogy merely because the goods were booked by the same carrier.

Conclusion: The detention of the petitioner's vehicle and goods, and the demand for security on the basis of the earlier assessment against another person, was not authorised by law and was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release of the vehicle and goods, and the impugned detention order could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Security under section 28AA(7) can be demanded only from a person against whom liability has been actually determined under section 28AA(4), and a liability assessed against one person cannot be enforced against another merely because the same goods carrier is involved.

---