Transit-pass non-surrender triggers statutory assessment, not detention of later consignments or vehicle restraint through system limits.

The transit-pass scheme under Section 48 is self-contained: failure to surrender an earlier transit pass creates a statutory presumption of local delivery and permits assessment and penalty against the person liable after due hearing. That consequence does not authorise detention of a later consignment or restraint of the vehicle merely because the computer system will not generate a fresh e-token. Administrative software cannot expand statutory power beyond the Act, and any detention on that basis, especially without notice under Section 47(2), would also conflict with Article 301. The department must proceed only through the statutory assessment mechanism against the person found liable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a vehicle and goods could be detained merely because an earlier transit pass was not surrendered at the exit check post, and whether the department could invoke system configuration to prevent issuance of a fresh transit pass instead of proceeding under the statute.

Analysis: The transit-pass mechanism under Section 48 is a self-contained scheme. Failure to surrender the transit pass at the exit check post creates a statutory presumption that the earlier goods were delivered within the State for sale and permits assessment and penalty against the persons specified in the provision after due hearing. That scheme does not authorise detention of a later consignment or interdiction of the vehicle on the ground that the computer system will not generate a new e-token. The statutory power is confined to proceedings under Section 48(3), and administrative software cannot add a restraint that the Act itself does not impose. Detention of goods or vehicles on that basis, especially without notice under Section 47(2), would also offend Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Detention of the subsequent consignment on the basis of non-surrender of an earlier transit pass was impermissible, but proceedings under Section 48(3) could still be taken against the person liable under the statute.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice could not be enforced as a basis for detention, and the department was confined to proceeding in accordance with the statutory assessment mechanism, with appropriate notice to the person found liable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a specific consequence for failure to surrender a transit pass, the administration cannot impose an additional restraint on transport or detention of goods by relying on computer-system limitations.

---