I.A. Ansari, J.

1. As a functionary of the State Government, it is essential for a Government servant to be vigilant and ensure that no evasion of tax takes place, but while attempting to stop such evasion of tax, the Government servant must know what his powers under the law are and if he has such powers, its exercise must not be arbitrary; otherwise, a Writ Court is bound to interfere and correct the position.

2. Viewed dispassionately, the case of the petitioner emerges to be as follows:

The petitioner is an authorized dealer having service centre of Maruti Udyog Ltd., at Nahariagun, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As a dealer of the Maruti Udyog Ltd, the petitioner carries on the business of selling and servicing of motor vehicles of the said company. The petitioner sells motor vehicles of the said company in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as well as in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The sale of motor vehicles within the State of Arunachal Pradesh are taxable at the rate of 12 % under the Arunachal Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1999"). The State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 8(5)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") directed, vide notification No. TAX/436/95/Part III, dated 2.5.2001 (Annexure A), that Central Sales Tax in respect of motor vehicles sold to any person, in course of inter-State trade and commerce by any dealer having his place of business in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and dealing with such motor vehicles, shall, with immediate effect, be calculated at the rate of 2% on the turnover of such sale. The petitioner, which also sells motor vehicles aforementioned, in course of inter-State trade and commerce, charged, in the light of the aforesaid notification, dated 2.5.2001 (Annexure A), central sales tax at the rate of 2% on the sale of motor vehicles made to various persons outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, by letter No. S-TAX-2-2000, dated 7.2.2002 (Annexure-B) the petitioner was directed by respondent No. 5, namely, Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Superintendent of Tax and Excise, Papumpare district, to stop selling motor vehicles to the customers outside the State with immediate effect. From the said letter, dated 7.2.2002, it is clear that the same was issued in pursuance of another letter, dated 6.2.2002, bearing No. Tax-16/2001/411 issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, Commissioner of Taxes and Excise, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner vide letter, dated 25.2.2002 (Annexure-C) requested the respondent No. 5 to review and re-examine the directions issued to stop sale of motor vehicles to customers outside the State, Similar letter (Annexure-D) was also addressed to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, by letter, dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure-E) respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner that he was only the implementing agency and not the policy maker and directed, therefore, the petitioner to write to the respondent No. 2, namely, Commissioner, Taxes and Excise, for re-examination of the matter and for necessary action, whereupon respondent No. 3, namely, Assistant Commissioner (Legal) Tax and Excise vide letter, dated 14.3.2002 (Annexure-F) directed the respondent No. 5, namely, Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Superintendent of Taxes, Tax & Excise, to inform the motor vehicle dealers of his district that the inter-State sale of motor vehicles at the rate of 2% would not be allowed pending decision of the Government in the matter. It was further stated therein that the motor vehicle dealers were free to sell motor vehicles to the outsiders at the rate of 12% local sales tax. The respondent No. 3, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Legal), Tax and Excise, vide letter dated 7.5.2002 (Annexure-G) communicated to the respondent No. 5, namely. Additional Deputy Commissioner cum Superintendent of Taxes and Excise the deci