The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax does not have the authority to initiate action under section 29-A(11) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, if the conditions for seizure and issuance of notice under section 29-CC of the Act are not satisfied.

A. R. TIWARI, J. - The petitioner No. 1 is a proprietory firm carrying on business of sale and purchase of supari as also other products as commission agent, at Indore. The petitioner No. 2 is the driver of the truck bearing registration No. TAX-8559. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"). On January 6, 1994, the petitioner No. 1 hired the aforesaid truck No. TAX-8559 from Changaramkulma for carrying supari worth Rs. 2,11,575 to Indore. When the truck crossed the barrier, the respondent No. 2 stopped the truck near Bijalpur and brought it to Navlakha Complex. The vehicle was searched and goods and documents were inspected. The documents were found in order. Yet, the vehicle and the goods were seized vide seizure memo (annexure P4). The respondent No. 2 felt that the value indicated in the documents was less than the value prevailing in the market. He, therefore, issued notice to the petitioner under section 29-A(11) of the Act. The notice is marked as annexure P6. Dubbing the seizure (annexure P4) and the notice (annexure P6) as without jurisdiction, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for appropriate reliefs.

2. I have heard both the sides.

3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has no authority to initiate action by issuance of notice under section 29-A(11) of the Act. According to him, it is limited to seeing that transport carried with him the requisite documents. The power does not extend to question or enquire whether the documents contained wrong particulars with regard to value of the goods being transported. No action, counsel urges, is permissible on the linchpin that value as shown was less than the market value and that it is not permissible to assume that this constituted an attempt to facilitate the evasion of tax on such goods. It is thus, submitted that the seizure of goods (annexure P4) as well as notice (annexure P6), issued pursuant thereto, are without jurisdiction and merit to be mortalised. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in Indore-Kolhapur Roadlines v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1994] 95 STC 141. It is argued that no lapse in terms of section 29-CC of the Act was indisputably discovered and consequently action, as initiated, was manifestly without jurisdiction.

4. The Government Advocate for the respondents could not point out existence of any of the conditions as enumerated under the aforesaid provision. In the face of this factual position and in view of the aforesaid order on the identical matters, he expressed his inability to support seizure and notice. He, however, prayed the liberty be reserved to take action if permitted under any other provision of the Act.

5. It is apt to notice the relevant provisions. Section 29-CC(3) of the act provides as under :

"If the officer referred to in sub-section (2) finds on the inspection of the vehicle that the transporter is not carrying the documents referred to in sub-section (1) or the documents being carried are not in order or the transporter is not carrying a copy of a declaration referred to in sub-section (2), he may direct the transporter to take the vehicle along with the goods and the documents to the nearest check-post or the circle or the sub-circle office to be named by him and stop it and keep it stationary there till such time as may be required for action in accordance with the provisions of section 29-A."

6. It is noticeable that action in accordance with the provisions of section 29-A of the Act is permissible only if specified officer on inspection of the vehicle found that -

(1) transporter is not carrying the documents referred to in sub-section (1), or

(2) documents being carried are not in order, or

(3) transporter is not carrying a copy of declaration referred to in sub-section (2).

By sub-section (1), it is mandated that the transporter transporting by road any goo