Judgment :- W.P.Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2010 are directed against the orders of detention passed by the first respondent dated 03.01.2010 and 13.01.2010 purported to be under Section 67 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 2. A reference to the impugned orders of detention show that the said respondent has reason to believe that a transaction of sale has taken place and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax. 3. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner, that they are the importers of various machines and they have transported through Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited outside the state of Tamil Nadu passing through the State and there is no transaction of sale, which has been taken place in the territory of the State and it does not attract taxing provision of Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 4. Mr.Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the documents which are produced to the first respondent in the check post including the service agreement with Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited shows that the Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited being the transporter transported the goods on behalf of the petitioner through Tamil Nadu and there is no transaction taken place in the territory of the State and inspite of various documents produced to the first respondent by the petitioner, the first respondent has detained the goods which is totally illegal and there is no such power under Section 67(5) to detain the goods. 5. Mr.R.Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions submits that the first respondent would pass orders on the basis of the documents which are produced. 6. As I have stated earlier, the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner contains the service agreement entered between the petitioner and Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited dated 6.07.2009 and a reference to various clauses in the said agreement show that the said Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited has been entrusted the work as per the agreement in transporting and moving the cargo and consignment belonging to the petitioner from pick up location and delivery to the destination as per the said agreement. Further the transport invoice dated 02.01.2010, which is also filed in the typed set of papers also makes it clear that the transport is effected on behalf of the petitioner through Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited. 7. Further the transport invoice dated 02.01.2010, which is also filed in the typed set of papers also makes it clear that the transport is effected on behalf of the petitioner through Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited. 7. In such circumstances, when there are several documents to show that the said carrier Drive India Enterprise Solutions Limited as per the agreement has carried the goods on behalf of the petitioner and in the absence of any transaction within the territory of the State, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appropriate authority should look into the matter and pass orders. 8. A reference to Section 67(5) is as follows:=- "67(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." No doubt 67(5) enables the authority to compel the production of various documents including delivery notes and various other documents. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has produced the documents as per agreement and transport invoice and hence there is no necessary for the first respondent to pass further orders. In such circumstances, the W.P.Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2010 are disposed of with a direction against the first respondent to pass orders releasing the goods which are detained under the impugned orders of detention dated 03.01.2010 and 13.01.2010 based on the contents of the agreement as well as invoices stated above. Such orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. By virtue of the direction given in W.P.Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2010 directing the first respondent to pass orders regarding the release of goods, no further order is required to be passed in W.P.No.1258 of 2010. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.