Statutory limits on tax interception prevent diversion of seized goods, and value-based relief follows when return becomes impossible.

Goods intercepted under the Karnataka VAT Act could not be transferred by the checking officer to another departmental wing for recovery of unrelated dues because no statutory authority permitted such diversion, and officers were bound to act within the limits of the Act. The High Court therefore set aside the impugned order and directed release of the goods in accordance with law. Since the goods had already been auctioned and physical return was impossible, the petitioners were granted consequential monetary relief equal to the invoice value within the time fixed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods intercepted under Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be handed over from the checking officer to the vigilance wing in the absence of statutory authority, and whether the petitioners were entitled to release of the goods or their value.

Analysis: The interception and checking of the vehicle were undertaken under Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The order records that no statutory provision authorized the checking officer to transmit the seized goods to another wing of the Commercial Tax Department for dealing with unrelated dues of the consignor. Officers exercising powers under the statute are bound by the limits of the enactment and cannot deviate from the prescribed procedure. As the goods had already been auctioned and could no longer be physically returned, the appropriate consequential relief was monetary reimbursement based on the invoice value.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioners succeeded. The respondents were directed to release the goods in accordance with law, and since the goods had been disposed of, to pay the invoice value within the time fixed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed with consequential relief in the form of payment of the value of the seized goods when physical release had become impossible.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of statutory authorization, goods seized during tax interception cannot be transferred to another departmental wing for extraneous recovery purposes, and unlawful retention may be redressed by directing payment of the goods' value when return is impracticable.

---