ORDER D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. - Subject-matter of this writ petition is non-release of certain goods, which were seized by the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department, while the goods were in transit. Writ petitioner is a person claiming to be the manager of M/s. Shree Vinayaka Roadways, Isanpur-Narol Highway, Isanpur, Ahmedabad, who has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to release forthwith the goods that were attached by the respondent under the proceedings dated July 24, 2004 (annexure C). Writ petitioner has also sought for costs of the writ petition. The petition is presented on the premise that the goods in question were attached for the purpose of realising a sum of Rs. 1,52,466 levied by way of penalty under section 53(12) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act"), as it was found that the goods in transit were not supported by commensurate transit documents. It is the version of the petitioner that the petitioner paid this amount and sought for release of the goods. However, the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department nevertheless, did not release the goods, inter alia, on the ground that the consignee to whom the goods were supposed to be transported was a person who was in arrears of tax for the months of April and May 2006; that the goods being one consigned to him and belonging to him, the goods are nevertheless required to be detained for realising such tax due to the department by the consignee. It appears, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 62(1) of the Act, as it was found that the authority which had unreasonably and without justification, detained the goods without releasing the same even after payment of the penalty, etc. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who heard the appeal, in terms of his order dated November 7, 2006 (annexure D) allowed the appeal, set aside the order of attachment and also the notice served on the petitioner for recovery of arrears of the fictitious assessee, who is the consignee and disposed of the appeal on such findings and conclusion. The petitioner, it appears, as a follow-up of such success in his appeal before the Joint Commissioner, requested the respondent to release the goods forthwith in terms of the representation dated November 10, 2006 (annexure E). The petitioner, it appears, as a follow-up of such success in his appeal before the Joint Commissioner, requested the respondent to release the goods forthwith in terms of the representation dated November 10, 2006 (annexure E). It is on the complaint that there is no response to this request, the present writ petition was presented seeking for a writ of mandamus as indicated in the beginning of this order. The respondent, on being notified, has entered appearance through Ms. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate and statement of objections was filed. Without going into the details, the sum and substance of the statement of objections is that there was justification for the detention of goods; that the petitioner has no locus to seek release of the goods or seek a writ of mandamus, as the follow-up verification has revealed that the petitioner is not the authorised person acting on behalf of either the consignee or transport company on whose behalf the writ petition had been presented; that therefore while a mandamus as sought for by the writ petitioner should not be issued, further development pleaded during the pendency of the writ petition was that the order of the Joint Commissioner has been made subject-matter of revision by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his power under section 64 of the Act, and pending consideration and disposal of this revision, the petitioner cannot seek release of goods, etc. This court has taken serious view of such exercise of power by the Commissioner. This court has taken serious view of such exercise of power by the Commissioner. Even when this matter was being considered by this court, the Commissioner has subsequently dropped the proceedings under section 64 of the Act, but the respondent, nevertheless, has continued its stand that the goods cannot be released, as the petitioner is not the person who can legally put forth a claim towards the goods; that the goods if had been sold as indicated by the consignor becomes the property of the consignee and the consignee not forthcoming before the court, for claiming the goods, the petitioner cannot seek release of goods in his favour and therefore a mandamus should not be issued; that at any rate, in the light of the stand taken by the consignor that he has no claim to get back the goods, as it had already been sold to the consignee, the department can definitely enforce the tax liability of the consignee as against the goods in question; that as the tax remained unpaid, it is still open to the respondent to detain the goods, till realisation of such tax, etc. In the wake of the not so cogent and consistent stand taken by the respondent, the matter remained on board of this court without either issuing a mandamus or dismissing the writ petition and in the wake of such developments, this court had noticed that the act of granting registration to a dealer - the consignee of the goods in question - even without verification of the antecedents, existence and such other related facts, amounts to registering a firm in a hurried manner, which was not a very healthy development on the part of the officials of the department, who, otherwise would be quite lethargic and this situation was directed to be looked into by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and to take necessary action against the officials if found to have erred in any manner while granting registration to the consignee firm, the so-called fictitious person according to the respondent. In the wake of such development, this court on October 1, 2007 had passed the following order : The affidavit of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore, is placed before the court which not only indicates the action initiated against the erring officials of the department, but also the details of number of applications received for grant of registration of dealership under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, "the Act") and also the number of applications disposed of month wise, duration taken for disposal of each case, etc. 2. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits insofar the prayer for mandamus is concerned, subsequent development are that while the dealer himself has not come forward and appears to be a fictitious person, the department, based on the two monthly reports filed for the months of May and June 2006, has passed protective assessment orders under the provisions of section 38(5) of the Act and the tax liability in terms of these two orders now adds up to Rs. 2,12,484; that as this amount is not realised, the goods in question which had been consigned to the dealer and which is in the ownership of the dealer as per the statement given to the department by the consignor, is now under attachment for realisation of this tax amount and therefore, the writ of mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. Learned Additional Government Advocate also submitted that the bona fides of the petitioner, viz., Ramawatar Pareek, who has sworn to the affidavit in support of the writ petition and who had appeared before this court as on September 26, 2007, is also in doubt as the said person is not in any way connected with the case though he might have paid the penalty amount on behalf of the consignor or the consignee. It is therefore, submitted that a mandamus at the instance of such a person cannot be issued. 3. Sri. It is therefore, submitted that a mandamus at the instance of such a person cannot be issued. 3. Sri. Koushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that this court, in fact, was on the verge of issuing a mandamus and it was only on the question of awarding costs in favour of the petitioner, the matter had been adjourned, but due to the subsequent development of the Commissioner exercising suo motu revisional powers under section 64 of the Act, the matter became further complicated and as the Commissioner himself has subsequently withdrawn the revisional order, it is a fit case where this court should not only issue a mandamus, but also the costs, etc. 4. If an order or direction issued pursuant to a quasi-judicial order like the order of the first appellate authority is not complied with or given effect to, a mandamus is issued as a matter of course by this court to ensure compliance of the directive, but in the present case, bona fides of many persons including the petitioner who lays claim to the goods in question is not free from doubt. It is for this reason, I am hesitant to issue a mandamus as prayed for. 5. Be that as it may, before passing final order, it is necessary that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should place an affidavit before this court undertaking to complete the proceedings now initiated against the erring officials and take it to its logical conclusion and also to state about the steps that can be initiated for enhancing the security deposit that should be insisted for grant of registration as the present security deposit, i.e., cash deposit of Rs. 10,000 in respect of the registration for dealers whose turnover is more than 25,00,000 appears to be too inadequate, particularly in circumstances of the present nature. For such purpose, the matter is to be called after two weeks. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Advocate shall take instructions from their respective clients and make submissions on the next date of hearing. List on October 25, 2007. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Additional Government Advocate. For such purpose, the matter is to be called after two weeks. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Advocate shall take instructions from their respective clients and make submissions on the next date of hearing. List on October 25, 2007. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Additional Government Advocate. Subsequently, the matter had been listed for further hearing and the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed before the court a memo on October 25, 2007, which is accompanied by the affidavit of the Commissioner, which, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate while fulfils the directions issued by this court on October 1, 2007, also indicates that necessary follow-up action is being taken in the light of the observations made by this court. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that in the wake of such developments, particularly the petitioner having been found to be a person who had misled this court by claiming that he is the representative of the transport company, whereas the follow-up action taken by the respondent and the officials of the Commercial Tax Department has indicated that even the transport company is not prepared to own up the petitioner, as its authorised representative for the purpose of transactions nor the consignor is prepared to accept that the petitioner is their representative and that the consignment being still in transit remained in the name of a fictitious person, there is no way the petitioner can seek release of the goods even after realising the tax due and payable by the consignee for which purpose the Government can still retain the goods and therefore seeks dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Additional Government Advocate would also seek permission of the court for realising such tax due by the consignee which was the tax amount due for the months of April and May 2006, in terms of the returns that had been filed by the person and even after that it is not open to the petitioner to seek return of the goods or the balance amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was the petitioner who had sought for release of the goods; that the petitioner has been prosecuting the matter diligently all these years and the petitioner had in fact appeared before the court in person as per the directions of the court; that the petitioner is a person who has paid the penalty amount that had been levied by the check-post officer, which is not disputed by the respondent also, and in such circumstance, in the absence of any other person coming forward to claim the goods or balance amount after meeting all taxes and penalty, from the proceeds of the goods, such balance amount that has to be necessarily given to the petitioner in the absence of any other rival claimant. While everything is not proper or in order in the present case and there appears to be considerable inconsistencies, even possible misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, it turned out that the officials of the Commercial Tax Department also have to share the blame for the situation, as granting of registration in the name of a fictitious person, is not an act which can be either appreciated or lauded. Though the learned Additional Government Advocate would urge the court that the petitioner should be dealt with commensurately and filing such writ petition should be discouraged, etc., in the light of the above observation, I do not think it is necessary in the present case to issue such a direction against the petitioner. Even the request for dismissing the petition and not to issue a writ of mandamus, I find it rather difficult to accept, particularly as the situation will not be any different even after the respondent has put forward the defence for detaining the goods for the purpose of realising the tax liability of the consignee for the months of April and May 2006. While it is true that the goods belonging to the assessee, who is in default, can be detained and action taken for realising the amount by bringing such goods for sale under the enabling provisions of the Act, there is no provision for confiscating any goods under this Act and the act of seizure or detention being only temporary, once the object of so detaining the goods is achieved, by the sale of the goods itself or part of the goods, that part of the sale proceeds, which is found to be in excess or surplus of the tax liability should necessarily be restored to the person to whom it belongs to. In the present case, as of now, only ground on which the respondent is still holding on to the goods is for the realisation of the tax liability of the consignee for the months of April and May 2006. While for realising such amount, the subject-matter goods can definitely be put to auction sale in accordance with the procedure under the very enactment and Rules framed thereunder, if it is found there is surplus left over after such realisation of tax, that amount the State cannot retain as its own, but should necessarily return to the person to whom the goods belong. In the present case, if no one else should come forward to claim the proceeds of such sale, which if found to be in surplus of the tax liability and the petitioner alone should put forth a claim, it is only proper that the respondents be directed to pay such surplus amount to the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner the surplus amount if any that remains after the subject goods are sold and the tax liability for which it had been detained is adjusted.