Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. W.M.P. No. 20104 of 1993, petition presented to give interim direction for immediate release of the goods consignment detained in proceedings GDR.4/93-94, dated July 12, 1993 on the file of the respondent abovenamed pending disposal of W.P. No. 13083 of 1993. Venson Transports, Madras (petitioner herein) was stated to have transported through lorry bearing registration number AP.03.T-2245-41, cartons of deluxe light from Bangalore and the said vehicle was stated to have been checked at 5 a.m. on July 7, 1993, at Salem by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Group V, Enforcement, Salem (respondent herein). During the course of inspection, it was found out that the driver of the vehicle did not carry bill of sale or delivery note for the transport from Hosur to Salem. Such transport did not wholly satisfy the requirements of section44 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"), read with rules 35(1) and 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules"). Consequently, a notice dated July 7, 1993, has been issued by the respondent in GDR.4/93-94, to the branch manager, Venson Transports, Salem, requiring him to file his objections in writing within seven days of the date of receipt of the said notice as to why the offence should not be compounded departmentally in a sum to be fixed in the enquiry, before ever he was prosecuted in a court of law for the refraction or violation committed by him. 2. In continuation of the earlier notice, again the respondent issued a notice GDR.4.93-94, dated July 12, 1993 to the said branch manager intimating him the amount to be paid for the release of the goods within two days and the said notice was stated to have been received by him on the very date of the issue itself, namely, on July 12, 1993. Aggrieved, by the said order, the petitioner resorted to the present action praying for issued of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and directing the respondent to release the goods unconditionally. 3. An application in W.M.P. No. 20104 of 1993 had also been filed praying for interim direction for release of the detained goods in the aforesaid proceedings. 4. 3. An application in W.M.P. No. 20104 of 1993 had also been filed praying for interim direction for release of the detained goods in the aforesaid proceedings. 4. When the writ petition along with the said W.M.P. came up for admission on July 16, 1993, after admitting the writ petition calling for records in eight weeks, notice returnable by July 20, 1993, was ordered in the W.M.P. with a direction for the same to be posted on July 20, 1993 and subsequently, the same had been posted for hearing on different dated and it came up for hearing in the list today. 5. Both learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for Taxes agree for the disposal of the main writ petition itself instead of passing any order in the W.M.P. Consequently, the main writ petition itself had been taken up for disposal today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if at all the petitioner can be fastened with penal consequences for refraction or violation of section 45(4)(a) of the Act for not carrying with him the requisite documents, namely, the sale bill or delivery note for the transport from Hosur to Salem; but he cannot definitely be mulcted with any penal consequences for the evasion of the tax sought to be claimed and if at all, the consignor, namely, Latha Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., 89/1 "ANMOL" II Floor, Gandhi Bazar Main Road, Bangalore-560 004 alone would be liable for such consequences and in that view of the matter, notice impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Government Advocate for Taxes representing the respondent would, however, repel such a submission and proceed to state that it is very well within the jurisdiction of the respondent-competent authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for violation or refraction of the provisions adumbrated under section 45(4)(a) and as well initiate proceedings for recovery of the tax due on such consignment, on the face of the sanguine provisions adumbrated under sub-section(3) of section42 of the Act. 8. In appreciation of the rival submissions of either counsel, better it is, I think to pen down the relevant statutory provisions, as available now, which cover the transaction on hand. Section 43 and 44 dealing with possession and submission of certain records by owner, etc., of boats/goods vehicle read as under : "43. 8. In appreciation of the rival submissions of either counsel, better it is, I think to pen down the relevant statutory provisions, as available now, which cover the transaction on hand. Section 43 and 44 dealing with possession and submission of certain records by owner, etc., of boats/goods vehicle read as under : "43. Possession and submission of certain records by owners, etc., of boats. - The owner or other person in-charge of a boat shall carry with him - (i) Bill of sale or delivery note, or such other documents as may be prescribed, and (ii) Log book relating to the goods under transport and containing such particulars as may be prescribed and shall submit to such officer as may be prescribed the documents aforesaid or copies thereof within such time as may be prescribed. 44. Possession and submission of certain records by owners, etc., of goods vehicle. - The owner or other person in-charge of a goods vehicle shall carry with him - (i) Bill of sale or delivery note or such other documents as may be prescribed, and (ii) Goods vehicle record or trip sheet relating to the goods under transport and containing such particulars as may be prescribed and shall submit to such officer as may be prescribed the documents aforesaid or copies thereof within such time as may be prescribed."* 9. Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 45 dealing with offences and penalties prescribes the consequences to be flowing from non-carrying of records or documents specified in section 43 or section 44, as the case may be and the same is couched as below : "Any owner or other person in-charge of a boat or goods vehicle who fails to carry with him any of the records or documents specified in section 43 or section 44, as the case may be, shall, on conviction, be liable to simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or both."* 10. So much of the provisions of section 42 dealing with establishment of check-post or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit, as is relevant for the present purpose, namely, sub-sections (3)(b)(ii), (4) and (5) thereof read as under : "(3) If, on such examination and inspection it appears - (b)(ii) that the sale or purchase of the goods carried has for the purpose of payment of tax under this Act, not been properly accounted for in the documents referred to in sub-section (5), and if the said officer is satisfied, after making such enquiry as he deems fit, that with a view to prevent the evasion of tax payable in respect of the sale or purchase of the goods carried, it is necessary to detain the goods, he shall detain the goods and direct the driver or any other person in-charge of the goods vehicle or boat, or the consignor or the consignee, (i) to pay such tax, or (ii) to furnish adequate security in such form and in such manner and to such authority as may be prescribed, on behalf of the person liable to pay such tax. (4) If the tax is paid or the security is furnished, then, the goods so detained shall be released forthwith. (5) The documents referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3) are, bills of sale, or delivery notes, or such other documents as may be prescribed."* 11. Sub-section (1) of section 46 dealing with composition of offences, which is relevant, is couched in the following terms : "46. Composition of offences. - (1) The prescribed authority, may, whether on application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, give any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under this Act, option to pay within a specified period, by way of composition of such offence -(a) Where the offence consists of the failure to pay, or the evasion of, any tax recoverable, under this Act, in addition to the tax so recoverable, a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees or double the amount of the tax recoverable, whichever is greater, and (b) in other cases, a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees."* 12. From the salutary provisions, as extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the carrier of the goods has to be mulcted with penal consequences, on a prosecution therefore having been launched, for the failure to carry documents as prescribed in either section 43 or section44 in the manner under section 45(4)(a) of the Act. In lieu of such prosecution, it is also permissible to have the offences compounded either on application made in this behalf by a person liable to be prosecuted or otherwise. Apart from the carrier being prosecuted or allowed to compound such an offence, plausibility and permissibility of the competent authority to require the carrier to pay the tax involved in carrying of the goods or to furnish by way of security thereof on behalf of the person liable to pay such tax. On payment of the tax or furnishing of the security, the goods detained shall be released forthwith. The Revenue is thus armed with power to safeguard its position to simultaneously prosecute the carrier or get the offence compounded and to demand the tax involved in the case or furnish security thereof for and on behalf of the person liable to pay such tax. 13. In the case on hand, the petitioner-carrier had originally been issued with a notice for the composition of offence for not carrying the relevant documents required to be carried and subsequently issued with a notice for the release of the goods detained on condition of his paying the tax due thereon for and on behalf of the consignor. Thus the original as well as the subsequent notices issued are apparently in conformity with the provisions adumbrated under the Act. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw may attention to two decisions of this Court, namely, Azeez Khan Sahib v. State of Madras and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer v. W. H. Deeth and Company, to show that either demand of tax for the release of the goods or penalty in lieu of confiscation is not legally permissible, unless and until the owner of the lorry or carrier is either the dealer or the owner of the goods. No doubt, the proposition of law, as evolved in those decisions of this Court could have held the field prior to the amendment of sub-section 3(b)(ii) of section 42. No doubt, the proposition of law, as evolved in those decisions of this Court could have held the field prior to the amendment of sub-section 3(b)(ii) of section 42. But the sordid and admitted fact is that the said sub-sectiondid undergo and amendment by Act 47 of 1979 and at the fag end of the said sub-section, the following expression, namely, "he shall detain the goods and direct the driver or any other person in-charge of the goods vehicle or boat, or the consignor or the consignee,"* has been appended and by such appendage, the position previously obtaining got a metamorphic change and made it legitimately possible for the department to demand tax due for the detained goods carried without the necessary and requisite documents either from the driver or from any other person in-charge of the goods vehicle or the boat or the consignor or the consignee and such being the case, the decisions, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any help or assistance in projecting or advancing his case to any extent whatever. 15. For the reasons, as above, the writ petition and W.M.P. deserve to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. Rule nisi issued shall stand discharged. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case.