https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127583 Section 28(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was limited to interception and search of vehicles to check compliance with the declaration requirement for notified goods. It did not authorise the officer in charge of a check-post to endorse transport receipts so that delivery of goods would be withheld until the Sales Tax Officer was present. The Court treated that endorsement as causing delay in delivery and affecting business rights, and held that such interference was sufficient to attract Article 226. A writ of mandamus was therefore available to restrain the officer from making the endorsement. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:24:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127583 Section 28(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was limited to interception and search of vehicles to check compliance with the declaration requirement for notified goods. It did not authorise the officer in charge of a check-post to endorse transport receipts so that delivery of goods would be withheld until the Sales Tax Officer was present. The Court treated that endorsement as causing delay in delivery and affecting business rights, and held that such interference was sufficient to attract Article 226. A writ of mandamus was therefore available to restrain the officer from making the endorsement. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Mar 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127583