Detention of goods without due enquiry cannot sustain tax retention where misloading and out-of-State delivery were supported.

Goods detained for transport without accompanying documents could not justify retention of tax on suspicion alone. The statutory detention power required an enquiry and a satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent evasion, but no meaningful enquiry was conducted and the carrier's explanation, including the claim of misloading and supporting documents showing out-of-State delivery, was not properly considered. On the materials available, there was no basis to treat the transaction as an intra-State sale or to retain the tax collected. The detention and tax collection were therefore invalid, and refund was due.

---

---

Issues: Whether tax collected on detention of goods transported without accompanying documents was legally justified and refundable.

Analysis: The carrier's goods were detained because they were being moved without the documents required by the sales tax law, which gave rise to a prima facie suspicion of evasion. However, the statutory power to detain further required an enquiry and a satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent tax evasion. No meaningful enquiry was held before the detention order and the authorities did not properly consider the carrier's explanation or supporting documents showing that the omission was due to misloading and that the goods were ultimately destined for delivery outside the State. On the materials available, there was no basis for treating the transaction as a sale within the State or for retaining the tax merely on suspicion.

Conclusion: The detention and collection of tax were invalid, and the assessee was entitled to refund.

---