Detention for incomplete transit documents upheld; unsupported storage plea and natural justice challenge also failed.

Detention and penalty were upheld where goods moved from Delhi to Haryana without the original prescribed Form DVAT-33 and only an incomplete photocopy was produced. The document lacked essential particulars, including the vehicle number, signatures of the consignor and consignee, and supporting goods receipts showing destination and purpose of movement. The plea that the goods were meant only for storage failed for want of contemporaneous support, and additional documents could not be relied upon at the appellate stage because of the statutory bar. No procedural illegality or breach of natural justice was found, as the authorities had considered the reply and material placed before them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention and penalty for transporting goods without complete prescribed documents were valid and whether the proceedings were vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The goods were transported from Delhi into Haryana, but the driver did not produce the original prescribed Form DVAT-33 and the document produced was only a photocopy that was incomplete. It did not contain essential particulars such as the vehicle number, signatures of the consignor and consignee, or supporting goods receipts showing the destination and purpose of movement. The plea that the goods were meant only for storage was not substantiated by the contemporaneous record. The Court also noted that additional documents sought to be produced at the appellate stage could not be relied upon in view of the statutory bar on their acceptance in appeal proceedings. On these facts, the authorities below had considered the reply and material before them, and no procedural illegality or breach of natural justice was made out.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty were upheld and the challenge based on natural justice failed.

---