Detention of goods requires statutory basis; mere route deviation allegations cannot justify seizure when prescribed documents accompany transit.

Goods in transit accompanied by sale bills and the prescribed documents under Section 67(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be detained merely on an unsupported allegation of route deviation. The detention and compounding notices referred to suspicious movement and alleged tax evasion, but did not show non-compliance with the statutory document requirement or any express legal authority permitting interception on that ground. In the absence of a demonstrated statutory basis for detention, the notices were held unsustainable and were set aside, with release of the goods and vehicles directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods detention notices and compounding notices were valid when the goods were accompanied by sale bills and other prescribed documents, and whether a mere allegation of route deviation furnished legal authority to detain the goods and vehicles.

Analysis: The goods were found to be accompanied by proper bills of sale as contemplated by Section 67(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The reasons stated for detention only referred to a suspicious movement and an alleged attempt to evade tax, but did not establish non-compliance with the statutory document requirement. The asserted route deviation was not supported by any statutory provision shown to authorise detention on that ground. In the absence of a demonstrated statutory basis for interception and detention, the impugned notices could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The detention notices and compounding notices were invalid and liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the goods and vehicles were directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods in transit are accompanied by the prescribed documents, detention cannot be sustained merely on an unsubstantiated allegation of route deviation unless the statute expressly authorises such interception.

---