Seizure of goods and release powers: factual findings protected in revision, and penalty order did not bar statutory release.

A fact-based finding that the truck had met with an accident, was repaired and then resumed transit was accepted on material on record, and the department's contrary assumption was treated as conjecture; the seizure was therefore unjustified and could not be disturbed in revision. The passing of a penalty order under Section 15-A(1)(o) did not bar or render infructuous relief under Section 13-A(6), because the power to direct release of seized goods remained independently available under the statutory scheme. On the facts, the transporter carrying the goods through its driver was held to be the person in charge of the goods for release purposes, and the order directing release was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seizure of the goods was justified on the facts found by the Tribunal; (ii) whether the passing of a penalty order under Section 15-A(1)(o) barred relief under Section 13-A(6); and (iii) whether the transporter could be treated as the person in charge of the goods for the purpose of release.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of the goods was justified on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the truck had met with an accident, was damaged, and was repaired before continuing its journey. That finding was supported by material on record and the department had made no meaningful investigation into the asserted facts. In revision, such a finding of fact, when based on cogent material, could not be disturbed. The assumption that the transit pass had been wrongly discharged and that the goods must have entered the State for sale was treated as a mere conjecture.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the passing of a penalty order under Section 15-A(1)(o) barred relief under Section 13-A(6).

Analysis: The proviso to Section 13-A(6) empowered the competent authority to direct release of the goods without deposit or on lesser security, and the order under that provision was independently appealable. The existence of a penalty order did not extinguish or pre-empt the power to order release of the goods under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The penalty order did not render the proceedings under Section 13-A(6) infructuous, and release could still be ordered.

Issue (iii): Whether the transporter could be treated as the person in charge of the goods for the purpose of release.

Analysis: The expression "person in charge of the goods" was not defined in the Act. On the facts, the transporter was carrying the goods through its driver to their destination, and there was no legal basis to exclude it from that expression. The Tribunal was therefore justified in directing release in favour of the transporter.

Conclusion: The transporter was held to be a person in charge of the goods for the purpose of release.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed, and the order directing release of the goods was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fact supported by cogent material cannot be interfered with in revision, and the statutory power to release seized goods is not taken away merely because a penalty order has been passed.

---