Transit-pass breach cannot justify seizure and indefinite truck detention beyond the statute's limited enforcement power.

A Gujarat VAT transit-pass dispute addressed two points: a writ court will not invalidate a seizure memorandum on a contested factual question about where the truck was intercepted, because such disputes require fact-finding; and failure to carry a transit pass under section 69 permits action only within that section's framework, not seizure of goods or detention of the truck under section 68(4) as a substitute. The commentary states that section 68(4) is limited to the statutory check-post context and cannot support indefinite detention beyond its narrow purpose. On that basis, the seizure memorandum was quashed and release of the truck and goods was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure memorandum could be challenged on a disputed question of fact as to the place where the truck was intercepted; and (ii) whether, for non-carrying of a transit pass under section 69 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the could seize the goods and detain the truck under section 68(4) of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure memorandum could be challenged on a disputed question of fact as to the place where the truck was intercepted.

Analysis: The allegation that the truck was stopped at a highway point and not at the notified check-post was specifically denied by the respondents. The dispute thus turned on contested facts, and in writ jurisdiction the Court would not enter into fact-finding on such a controversy.

Conclusion: This issue was not accepted as a ground to invalidate the seizure memorandum.

Issue (ii): Whether, for non-carrying of a transit pass under section 69 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the could seize the goods and detain the truck under section 68(4) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 69 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 imposes the obligation to carry a transit pass and prescribes penalty for failure to do so, but it does not confer power to seize goods or detain the truck. The power under section 68(4) operates where the statutory requirements relating to check-post interception are not satisfied, and it cannot be used as a substitute for action under section 69. The continued detention of the truck also exceeded the limited power to detain the vehicle for the purpose of facilitating seizure of goods. The impugned action was therefore beyond authority and amounted to a colourable exercise of power.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner, and the seizure memorandum was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed, the seizure memorandum was quashed, and release of the truck and goods was directed as the detention and seizure were without authority of law.

Ratio Decidendi: For breach of the transit-pass requirement under section 69 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the authority may proceed only in the manner provided by that section, and cannot invoke section 68(4) to seize goods or keep the vehicle detained indefinitely beyond the limited statutory purpose.

---