BILAL NAZKI, J. - The petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in purchase and sale of laminated sheets. He is an assessee for the purpose of sales tax. The petitioner's assessments were being made every year under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as "the State Act" and "the Central Act", as the case may be). According to the petitioner, he has been paying taxes on the sale turnovers registered in the books of account and disclosed to the department in the monthly returns. The laminated sheets were also liable to tax at the rate of 12 per cent in terms of the relevant entry No. 17A of the Sixth Schedule to the Act which provides levy of tax at every point of sale. The laminated sheets were not liable to tax at the point of purchase. The petitioner submitted that he effected inter-State purchases of laminated sheets from one M/s. Durloan Ltd., in Gujarat and inter-State purchase was covered by relevant documents, viz., invoice issued by the consignor, lorry receipt and advance way bill of the petitioner and the said consignment was being carried in goods vehicle bearing No. AP 9 V 1576 of Bombay Andhra Transport Organisation. While the vehicle was carrying the goods during the course of inter-State trade or commerce in transit, it was inspected on July 26, 2004. The inspection, according to the petitioner, revealed that transportation of laminated sheets was covered by Invoice No. 153, dated July 22, 2004 issued by the manufacturer. According to the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes through a circular, every dealer who was purchasing laminated sheets from outside the State was supposed to issue advance way bills and accordingly the consignment was covered by way bill. According to the petitioner, no irregularities or defects or omission were found by the inspecting authorities in regard to the transportation of the goods. However, the respondent issued a detention notice on July 27, 2004. It is submitted that there is no power under the State sales tax law to detain the goods, though the power is vested with the authorities to seize the goods and take further action thereafter including confiscation, if found that the goods were not accounted for. As such the notice issued on July 27, 2004 was without authority of law. The petitioner further submitted that having found no defect or irregularity in the documents accompanying the goods, the respondent maintained that the sale price of the goods contained in the sale bill was less than the prevailing market price in the State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore the goods were detained with the vehicle pending enquiry and a notice has been issued on July 27, 2004 to the driver of the vehicle Mr. Jafar. It is further submitted that the excise duty-cum-invoice challan No. 153 issued by the outside State supplier mentions the basic excise duty as well as the cess levied under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondent, on July 26, 2004, issued a notice to the petitioner requesting him to quote the price/value at which he intends to sell the goods covered by the invoice for taking necessary action in the matter. The petitioner further contended that though he was under no obligation, yet showing respect to the sovereign State, he submitted a letter on July 29, 2004 indicating the proposed sale price which was inclusive of sales tax payable at 12 per cent and other expenses. But the respondent detained the consignment on July 27, 2004 and entrusted the detained goods only on August 10, 2004 to the Central Warehouse. It is submitted that the action of the respondent in detaining the goods with vehicle was without authority of law. It is contended that even if it is assumed that the power of seizure of goods could also authorise the respondent to detain the goods, nevertheless such action was arbitrary, improper and unjust as the documents w