Check-post detention and voluntary compounding under VAT law cannot be forced when statutory documents are carried.

Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 penalises failure to stop a vehicle at a check post, but it does not by itself authorise detention of goods or the vehicle when the required documents are being carried; detention arises only if the statutory conditions for interception and seizure are otherwise met. Compounding under Section 61(1)(iii)(aa) is voluntary, so the compounding fee cannot be coerced, and the authority's remedy is to proceed with prosecution under the Act. The note records that release of the goods and vehicle follows where detention is unsupported by the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods and vehicle could be detained merely because the driver failed to stop at the check post when all required documents were carried in the vehicle. (ii) Whether the authorities could compel payment of compounding fee for the alleged offence.

Issue (i): Whether the goods and vehicle could be detained merely because the driver failed to stop at the check post when all required documents were carried in the vehicle.

Analysis: Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 penalises a driver or person in charge who fails to stop the vehicle when required, but that provision does not confer power to detain the vehicle or the goods where the necessary documents are being carried. Detention is permissible only where the statutory requirements for interception and detention are attracted by non-carrying of documents or other conditions that authorise such action under the Act.

Conclusion: The detention of the goods and the vehicle was not justified on this ground, and the writ petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities could compel payment of compounding fee for the alleged offence.

Analysis: Section 61(1)(iii)(aa) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 permits compounding only at the volition of the person who has committed the offence. Refusal to compound does not authorise coercive recovery of the compounding amount and leaves the authority free only to initiate prosecution under Section 59 of the Act.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be forced to compound the offence, and the respondents' demand for payment of compounding fee was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The authorities were directed to release the vehicle and the goods forthwith, while retaining liberty to proceed in accordance with Section 59 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute prescribes prosecution for failure to stop a vehicle at a check post and does not authorise detention of goods and vehicle where the required documents are carried, detention is impermissible; compounding of the offence is optional and cannot be compelled.

---