D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT Petitioner who claims to be a dealer engaged in the business of execution works contract and based at Tirupathi town in the State of Andra Pradesh and that he is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Andra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, has approached this Court seeking for relief for quashing the endorsements dated 14-1-2005 in respect of two goods transport vehicles bearing Nos. KA 21/4674 and KA-O1 B 9248, which were hired by the petitioner for transporting what is known as 'bitumen' a byproduct in processing of petroleum which the petitioner claims to have purchased from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , at mangalore and is intended for transportation to Tirupath. ( 2 ) THE endorsements in respect of the two vehicles and the goods in them is in the nature of a prohibitory order passed on the person incharge of the vehicles for detaining the vehicles at the sales tax check post at Kannur, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, issued by the respondent No. 1-Commercial Tax Officer. The endorsements are one purporting to be issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 28-A (3-B) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as it is claimed that in the opinion of the Officer, it was necessary for verification of the accuracy of the particulars furnished in respect of the supporting documents which were accompanying the goods and which were scrutinized at the check post by the authorised Officer of the Commercial taxes Department. These endorsements dated 14-1-2005 were as a follow up action of an earlier endorsement dated 30-12-2004, the date on which the vehicles were checked and detained and the petitioner had been called upon to produce the particulars of sales tax registration certificate, monthly returns for the month of November 2004 etc. , within a period of 10 days and further that pending production of such particulars, the vehicles in question were to be detained at the check post at the risk of the petitioner itself. The subsequent endorsements which according to the petitioner is after, production of the relevant documents that had been called, for, which the petitioner had placed before the Authority along with its letter dated. The subsequent endorsements which according to the petitioner is after, production of the relevant documents that had been called, for, which the petitioner had placed before the Authority along with its letter dated. 12-1-2005 {copy at annexures-C and D} was to extend the period of such detention by further period of 7 days as the respondent No. 2, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes {intelligence} had asked the authority who had detained the vehicles to extend such detention by a further period of 7 days as investigation was still in progress etc. ,. ( 3 ) IT is aggrieved by such action on the part of the respondents in detaining the vehicles with its goods at the check post ever since 30-12-2004 and with the contention that notwithstanding the petitioner having produced the necessary documents at the time of the check which had accompanied the vehicles and even after producing further documents that had been called for, the vehicles and goods not being released, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for relief for quashing of the endorsements and to direct the Authorities to release the vehicles and the goods. ( 4 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Arvind Kamath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are many. It is firstly contended that the authorities cannot detain a vehicle in transit when once necessary supporting documents are produced before the check post authorities and the check post authorities have not found or detected any violation committed by the petitioner or the vehicles itself or any violation by the carrier. ( 5 ) IT is further contended that the authorities could not have detained the vehicles even after compliance with the requirements as per their earlier endorsements dated 30-12-2004. Mr. Kamath also submits that subsequent endorsements dated 14-1-2005 apprising the petitioner that the detention will continue for a further period of a week or so is one without the support of law; that the Commercial Tax Officer who is the one enabled to detain the vehicles for verification, investigation etc. Mr. Kamath also submits that subsequent endorsements dated 14-1-2005 apprising the petitioner that the detention will continue for a further period of a week or so is one without the support of law; that the Commercial Tax Officer who is the one enabled to detain the vehicles for verification, investigation etc. , though was satisfied on the petitioner producing the relevant documents has, nevertheless, continued the detention of the vehicles and the goods and extended the same for a further period of one week said to be at the behest of the respondent No. 2-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence); that the respondent No. l cannot extend the period of detention at the behest of other Officers or higher Officers; that the opinion as to the necessity for detaining the vehicles should be of the officer so detaining the vehicles and not that of any other officer. Mr. Kamath also submits that the action is also not supported by the very provisions under which the Authorities have detained the vehicles; that even after the expiry of the period of one week from the endorsements dated. 14-1-2005 then also the vehicles and the goods have not been released and that the detention is being extended indefinitely without any basis or justification. ( 6 ) NOTICES had been issued to the respondents. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Statement of Objections has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. 14-1-2005 then also the vehicles and the goods have not been released and that the detention is being extended indefinitely without any basis or justification. ( 6 ) NOTICES had been issued to the respondents. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Statement of Objections has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 7 ) WHAT is principally urged by the learned Government Pleader is that the action taken by the respondents is one as contemplated under Section 28-A (3-B) of the Act; that the Authorities have entertained a genuine and bonafide doubt as to whether the petitioner who has made several transactions of purchase of 'bitumen' from M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , at mangalore, as a transaction of inter state sale and the seller allowing the concessional rate of tax of 4% on such inter state sales with the assurance of the petitioner the buying dealer to produce 'c' Forms and the petitioner being in the habit of issuing blank 'c' Forms to the seller and the authorities on verification having found that the petitioner had not effected commensurate sale of such bitumen which had been purchased by the petitioner for the last two months; that whereas the petitioner had purchased bitumen of the value of Rs. 32 lakhs but had not sold commensurate value of bitumen in the State in which it is registered as a registered dealer. ( 8 ) LEARNED Government Pleader submits that the respondents entertained bonafide doubt that the petitioner instead of taking out the purchased bitumen from out of the State and into the State of andhra Pradesh, has indulged in unloading the bitumen within the State and selling it locally particularly as such action has the incentive of the petitioner gaining by the difference in the rate of taxation between an inter state sale transaction against production of 'c' Form and an intra state sale as the former transaction attracts tax at the rate of 4%, the latter transaction tax at the rate of 24. 9%. 9%. ( 9 ) LEARNED Government Pleader submits that the petitioner who is a dealer registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh and who has the facility of such refineries like M/s. Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. , even within about 100 kilometers from its place of business; that the petitioner coming all the way to Mangalore to purchase bitumen from the Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. , refinery at Mangalore which is at a distance of more than 700 kilometers from his place of business does not stand to reason and the petitioner should be obviously indulging in the malpractice of selling bitumen purchased as for inter state transaction locally and making a profit of the amount of difference in the rates of taxes. ( 10 ) LEARNED Government Pleader submits that the respondents had addressed letters to the sales tax authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh; that the information which they have received so far is not at all satisfactory for the purpose of giving a clean chit to the petitioner; that the petitioner which had never paid any taxes prior to such enquiry by the respondents, has subsequent to such enquiry paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards tax liability in respect of turnover in that State whereas it had earlier filed a 'nil' return for the very month and such revision in returns and indication of tax liability therein is only after the respondents had started scrutinizing the transaction; this in itself is indicative that all was not well with the transactions of the petitioner and as the respondents are still to ascertain the full facts and possible violations in respect of earlier inter state sale transactions, the Authorities have detained the vehicles and the goods in exercise of their powers conferred under Section 28-A (3-B) of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Therefore, the action does not call for interference at this stage and the Writ Petitions are to be dismissed. However, learned Government Pleader hastens to add that that the violation they are apprehending is in respect of the very transaction and in respect of the goods under transit through the vehicles under detention. Therefore, the action does not call for interference at this stage and the Writ Petitions are to be dismissed. However, learned Government Pleader hastens to add that that the violation they are apprehending is in respect of the very transaction and in respect of the goods under transit through the vehicles under detention. ( 11 ) THE provisions of Section 28-A (3-B) reads as under: 28-A. establishment of checkpost or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit: 3 (B): "where the officer-in-charge of the checkpost or barrier, or the officer empowered as aforesaid on interception of the goods vehicle or inspection of any godown, is of the opinion that further verification is necessary with respect to either accuracy of the particulars furnished in the documents accompanying the goods under transport or in transit, or as to the sufficiency and the cause adduced in respect of any contravention of Sub-section (2), he may verify the particulars himself or if it is necessary cause it to be verified by referring the matter to any other officer and if such verification is not likely to be completed within a reasonable time, he may direct in writing the carrier or the person-in-charge of the goods vehicle or the godown not to deliver the goods until permitted to do so by him or such other to whom the matter is referred for verification and allow the intercepted vehicle, if any, to pass through". The provisions of Section 28-A (3-B) are one which is in the nature of an enabling provision for detaining a carrier and the goods if the authorities notice any violation and further investigation is required. Even if the authorities find that the supporting documents produced by the carrier are not genuine, one giving rise to any suspicion then also for cross verification purposes, the authorities can detain the vehicle and the goods pending such verification which should be made within a reasonable time. The verification, calling for relevant information and particulars are all in respect of the very transaction under which the goods are being transported by the carrier. It cannot be in respect of any other transaction, obviously not in respect of the earlier transactions. The verification, calling for relevant information and particulars are all in respect of the very transaction under which the goods are being transported by the carrier. It cannot be in respect of any other transaction, obviously not in respect of the earlier transactions. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the respondents are not so much disputing that the supporting documents which the petitioner has placed before the authorities to support the transporting of the goods are in order or that it is not lacking in any particular information or that it is a genuine documents. What is urged is that even earlier also the petitioner had caused such transaction, had availed concessional rate of duty of 4% against production of 'c' Form in respect of inter state sales transaction, by production of blank 'c' Forms and the respondents bonafide suspect that the petitioner had not concluded the transaction as an inter state transaction, but had aborted the same and could have indulged in local sale of the goods covered under the transaction. ( 13 ) LEARNED Government Pleader has drawn my attention to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of section 28-A of the Act which reads as under: " 28-A. Establishment of checkpost or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit: 4. ( 13 ) LEARNED Government Pleader has drawn my attention to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of section 28-A of the Act which reads as under: " 28-A. Establishment of checkpost or barrier and inspection of goods while in transit: 4. The officer in charge of the check post or a barrier or any other officer not below the rank of a commercial Tax Inspector and not higher in rank than a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes, in respect of any contravention of, or non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) or (3) or (3-A) of (3-B), for which sufficient cause is not furnished, {levy a penalty which ( a) shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but shall not exceed one and half of the amount of tax leviable in respect of the goods under transport in contravention of clause (d) or (e) of Sub-section (2), if a dealer registered under the Act accepts that he is the consignor or consignee of the goods, (b) in cases other than those falling under clause (a), shall not be less than double the amount of tax leviable but shall exceed three times the amount of tax leviable in respect of the goods under transport:} provided that-, (i) where the amount of penalty leviable is more than the value of the goods, the amount of penalty leviable shall be restricted to such value; (ii) x x x x;] (iii) in respect of contravention of Sub-section (3-B), where the penalty levied is not paid, the carrier or bailee or person-in-charge of the goods vehicle shall jointly and severally be liable to pay such penalty and such amount of penalty shall for the purpose of Section 13 be deemed to be an amount due under the Act; (iv) before levying any penalty under this Sub-section , the officer shall give the person-in-charge of the goods vehicle or boat or carrier, or bailee, or a dealer registered under the Act, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Explanation:- Where the destination of the goods to be delivered in the State is not less than one hundred Kilometers, from the check post or barrier or any other place at which the goods vehicle or boat is intercepted, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be a period of not less than ten days}" The above provision enables the respondents to not only levy a penalty which can be not less than the tax leviable but may go upto one and half times such liability and if an occasion should arise on the further information that the respondents could pass an order under the provisions of this Sub-section and even before taking such action if the vehicles and the goods are released, the respondents will not be in a position to enforce and realise a penalty that may be imposed on the petitioner under this provision of law. This is urged as a justification for further detention of the goods and the vehicle. ( 14 ) A perusal of the provision indicates that levy of penalty can only be in respect of the very transaction which was the subject matter of scrutiny and the detection that the transaction was not genuine or not one in compliance with the requirements of the legal provisions. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the genuineness but or the correctness of the supporting documents but are only attributing a possible misuse of it as the petitioner could have done in respect of the earlier transactions. ( 15 ) IF the respondents have detected or noticed any contravention or non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2), (3), (3-A) or (3-B) and the petitioner on being put on notice is still unable to explain the violation, then alone they can levy penalty. Obviously, it is in respect of the very transaction. That is not at all the case of the respondents in these Writ Petitions. Assuming that there was any violation or contravention or non-compliance of any legal provisions in respect of the earlier transactions, Section 28-A (4) does not enable the respondents to levy penalty in respect of those transactions. Obviously, it is in respect of the very transaction. That is not at all the case of the respondents in these Writ Petitions. Assuming that there was any violation or contravention or non-compliance of any legal provisions in respect of the earlier transactions, Section 28-A (4) does not enable the respondents to levy penalty in respect of those transactions. Learned Government Pleader is unable to point out any other provision assuming that during the contemplated action under such other provision also, provisions of Section 28-A (3-B) enables the respondents to detain the goods and the vehicles in the present in the present transaction. ( 16 ) THE endorsements at Annexures-E and F apart from suffering from defect pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner namely that detention is at the behest of some other Officer and not due to the formation of opinion by the Officer detaining it, the very basis for such detention appears to be very fragile: that if the action as contemplated under Section 28-A (4) of the Act is not possible, there is no meaning or purpose invoking provisions of Section 28-A (3-B) of the Act. The provisions of Section 28-A (3-B) do not operate independently but is only a step in aid of further action under Section 28-A (4) of the Act. If there is no possibility of taking such action under Section 28-A (4), there is absolutely no justification for detaining the vehicles or the goods on the premise that further particulars are called for and are awaited. The action on the part of the respondents to detain the vehicles indefinitely for unreasonable time is not only not supported in law, but has resulted in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. The action on the part of the respondents cannot be characterized as either bonafide or justified on the available statutory provisions, but on the other hand, definitely is in violation of the right of the petitioner to carry on its trade or business. This is a clear instance of misuse of statutory power by the respondents. ( 17 ) IN the result, these Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the endorsements bearing No. CTO/stcp/kannur/ 81/ms/04-05 [copy at Annexure-E} and No. CTO/stcp/ kannur/82/ms/04-05 both dated 14-1-2005 {copy at Annexure-F} are hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorar. The respondents are directed to release forthwith the vehicles and its goods. ( 17 ) IN the result, these Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the endorsements bearing No. CTO/stcp/kannur/ 81/ms/04-05 [copy at Annexure-E} and No. CTO/stcp/ kannur/82/ms/04-05 both dated 14-1-2005 {copy at Annexure-F} are hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorar. The respondents are directed to release forthwith the vehicles and its goods. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, Respondents are at liberty to take any other action for any other violation if noticed, as contemplated under the law and under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Respondents to pay Rs. 10. 000/- towards cost to the petitioner. Cost may be recovered by the State in equal measure personally from the respondents No. l and 2.