Writ interference over transit detention rejected where the authority acted within jurisdiction and alternate remedy was available.

Goods detained in transit for alleged lack of valid sale bill or delivery note were challenged in writ jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court noted that the goods were accompanied by the relevant invoice and that the prescribed authority had acted within its jurisdiction under Section 67. On those facts, the detention at the check post and the consequential demand for tax and compounding amount were not found to be without jurisdiction or otherwise unsustainable. The availability of an alternate remedy did not assist the petitioner, and writ interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention of goods in transit and the consequential demand for tax and compounding amount under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The goods were detained on the footing that the movement was not supported by a valid sale bill or delivery note, and the impugned proceeding offered the petitioner an option to pay a differential amount after adjusting the amount already paid. The Court noted that the petitioner's goods were accompanied by the relevant invoice and that the respondent, being the prescribed authority under Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, was competent to act in the matter. On the facts, the detention at the check post and the demand raised were not found to be without jurisdiction or otherwise unsustainable. The availability of an alternate remedy did not assist the petitioner in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The challenge to the detention and demand was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned action was upheld, leaving the petitioner without writ relief, while the revenue was left free to act in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods in transit are detained on alleged statutory violation and the authority acts within its prescribed jurisdiction, writ interference is not warranted merely because the assessee disputes the demand or seeks to rely on the accompanying invoice.

---