2008 (10) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid notices. According to brief facts of the case, the petitioner sent a consignment of SS circle in Truck No. RJ 01-G/3240 from Jodhpur to Chennai. On August 24, 2008, the said truck was seized by respondent No. 3 and a notice under section 76(5)(a) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, referred to hereinafter as, "the Act") was given to the driver of the truck asking him to take the truck to RTO, Chowki Mawli and the driver was directed to produce the bill book. The petitioner immediately submitted reply to the notice. The case of the petitioner is that he has sent the consignment to M/s. Vardan Enterprises, Chennai, vide bill No. 42 dated August 22, 2008. The truck ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the provisions of section 76 of the Act and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals reported in [2001] 124 STC 611, in which, the apex court has held that the analogous provisions which were in force prior to the VAT Act under section 74(2)(v) are nothing more than provisions to facilitate the inspection of the goods carried from one State to another State and falls within entry 54 of II List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby, the provisions of section 76(5)(a) are only to the extent of inspection and not in respect of any other purpose. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3 is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and not releasing the vehicle though under section 76(5)(a) of the Act, it is a mandatory duty of the respondent-Department to decide the matter within seven days. Therefore, the whole proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in which there is no substance, may be declared invalid and the vehicle in question along with the goods may be ordered to be released immediately. Per contra, by way of filing reply it is submitted by the respondents that the proceedings are going on and enquiry is being conducted and notice was given to the petitioner while he was asked to supply documents to explain why action should not be taken against him. Therefore, that this writ petition is premature. The ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntitled to seek any relief while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are ready to decide the matter but the petitioner is required to co-operate and appear before the respondents for adjudication of the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention towards S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7010 of 2007, decided on March 7, 2008, (Mathura Dass v. State) in which, this court disposed of the writ petition in similar circumstances while directing the respondents to take final decision after proper adjudication in accordance with law within the stipulated time, therefore, in this case also, the respondents are ready to decide the matter in accordan....