JUDGMENT Pradeep Kant :- We have heard Sri N. C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a registered dealer doing business, inter alia, of purchasing commission agency of essential oils. During the relevant period, the petitioner entered into a written composite agreement with M/s. Jindal Drugs Ltd., Gangyal, Jammu, for purchase and dispatch of 1332 MT mentha oil on their behalf on commission basis for advances made by the ex-U.P. principal by bank transfer. Actual expenses and commission were to be charged by the petitioner and the ex-U.P. principal was to provide form F for the transaction. The registration certificate and the agreement with ex-U.P. principal have been brought on record. The business of purchasing commission agency stands accepted by the assessing authority since its inception on November 9, 2005 till 2008-09 after detailed examination of the nature of transaction and books of account. The assessment orders of the previous years reflecting the aforesaid position have been brought on record. The petitioner purchases mentha oil from the farmers on behalf of ex-U.P. principal and dispatch as against statutory forms 6R, 9R and gate pass of mandi samiti. Mandi fee at the rate of 2.5 per cent is charged on removal of goods from mandi area for dispatch of goods to ex-U.P. principal. Name of ex-U.P. principal is mentioned on form 6R. The entry in books is also made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal. The goods are dispatched within two or three days of the purchase to the ex-U.P. principal as soon as one truck load of goods are purchased. The plea of the petitioner is that such transactions are exempted under section 7 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, in short "the Act", and the State Government has no legislative competence to impose tax on such transactions as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); [1992] UPTC 971 (SC). The petitioner appears to have purchased 13.320 MT mentha oil from farmers by form 6R between July 17, 2010 and July 20, 2010. The goods were dispatched to ex-U.P. principal M/s. Jindal Drugs Limited, Jammu vide prescribed challan dated July 20, 2010 by truck vide goods receipt No. 082478 dated July 20, 2010 of M/s. IRC (India) Limited, Lucknow. The petitioner appears to have purchased 13.320 MT mentha oil from farmers by form 6R between July 17, 2010 and July 20, 2010. The goods were dispatched to ex-U.P. principal M/s. Jindal Drugs Limited, Jammu vide prescribed challan dated July 20, 2010 by truck vide goods receipt No. 082478 dated July 20, 2010 of M/s. IRC (India) Limited, Lucknow. The consignment allegedly was accompanied with all necessary documents, namely, prescribed stock transfer challan No. 02/052 dated July 20, 2010 containing all the details, statutory form 21 prescribed for transport of goods, mandi gate pass dated July 20, 2010, mandi 9R dated July 20, 2010 and GR dated July 20, 2010. While the goods were being transported, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Bareilly, detained the goods on July 21, 2010 on the directions of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Grade - I, Lucknow Zone, as communicated by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax (SIB), Grade II, Bareilly, against the provisions of section 48(1) of the Act. A detention memo was issued on July 21, 2010 requiring the petitioner to be present for physical verification of the loaded goods and the documents. Thereafter a supplementary detention memo was issued on July 22, 2010, saying that purchases from 46 persons have been made at the same rate which shows that the goods being transported are different from the goods mentioned in the documents accompanying the consignment and the vouchers of purchases were not available with the consignment. The petitioner made a written request for release of the goods, submitting that the first detention order was issued on the directives of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Grade I, Lucknow Zone, which does not show any reason to believe that the goods were not accounted for by the dealer in his books of account maintained in the ordinary course of business or there was any undervaluation of more than 50 per cent, and also that the second detention memo was based on absolutely incorrect facts, but the prayer for release of goods was not accepted and a show-cause notice dated July 30, 2010 was issued. In show-cause notice, it was stated that the goods which were being transported are not the same as purchased against form 6R mentioned in the transfer invoice. In show-cause notice, it was stated that the goods which were being transported are not the same as purchased against form 6R mentioned in the transfer invoice. This inference was drawn for the following reasons : (a) The test report of the percentage of menthol in the mentha oil obtained from the random sample from 10 drums is almost similar. (b) The inspection of the 6R shows that names of different farmers/sellers have been written in the same manner. (c) The purchases on July 20, 2010 have been made from 38 persons which is not possible in one day. (d) There is difference in the entries of transfer invoice and form 9R as shown below : Sl. No. Entries in transfer invoice Entries in transfer invoice Entries in 9R Entries in 9R - Particular Amount in Rs. Particular Amount in Rs. 1. Commission 6,660 Commission 6,660 2. Cartage 600 Cartage - 3. Testing 500 Testing - 4. Stamp 46 Stamp 1,146 5. Cost of drum/mandi fee 2,33,100 Mandi fee 2,33,100 - Total 95,66,386 - 95,66,386 A written reply was filed to the aforesaid show-cause notice. The petitioner urged that without considering their reply, the order for seizing the goods has been passed. The seizure order dated August 23, 2010 is based on the grounds that similar quality of mentha oil has been purchased from different farmers, purchases were made without GLC, the form 6R has been written in the same flow and purchases from 38 persons in a day show that the goods mentioned in form 6R and those transported in the consignment are not the same goods. There is difference in form 9R and transfer invoice. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating their stand, which was taken in the reply to the show-cause notice, submitted that though the grounds mentioned in the detention order as well as in the show-cause notice and thereafter in the seizure order are factually incorrect and are absolute misreading of the documents which were available with the goods and were also produced before the authority, but even otherwise, on the basis of such reasonings the goods could neither have been detained nor seizure order could have been passed. Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, in response, submitted that this was a case where the transaction was not found to be bona fide and that it has been found that the goods loaded could not be connected with the documents available and that the goods, which were not properly accounted for by the dealer in his account book and other documents maintained in ordinary course of business, have rightly been seized. He also raised a plea that the petitioner could file an appeal against the order passed under section 48 of the Act or that in any case, even if such an appeal is not provided, the matter can be seen during the assessment proceedings but the writ petition for the purpose would not lie. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, has submitted that the action of the respondents in seizing the goods was wholly without jurisdiction and authority, coupled with the fact that no appeal lies against the order of seizure and the impugned order being wholly without jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot be required to wait for assessment proceedings, for delivery of goods and in such a situation, the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner again emphasised that the grounds of detention and seizure cannot be attributed to any of the conditions mentioned in section 48(2) of the Act, which permits seizure when the goods are not properly accounted for by any dealer in his accounts, registers or other documents maintained in the course of his business. The submission is that the goods mentioned in the transfer invoice and form 6R were the same and there being no anomaly, the same could not have been seized on the ground that they were not accounted for by the dealer in his account books. So far the plea of alternative remedy available to the petitioner is concerned, suffice would be to mention that no appeal would lie under the Act against the order of seizure. So far the plea of alternative remedy available to the petitioner is concerned, suffice would be to mention that no appeal would lie under the Act against the order of seizure. Further, in a case where the order passed by the authority is wholly without jurisdiction and if such an order affects the rights of petitioner adversely, the High Court would be justified in entertaining a petition under article 226 of the Constitution without requiring the petitioner to take recourse to other remedy available under the Act, particularly when no appeal lies against the order of seizure. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Gopal Traders v. State of U.P. reported in [2010] VST B-594 (All), while dealing with the case of alternative remedy, held that whenever from the record, it appears that some decision is taken without jurisdiction, then it is the constitutional obligation of the higher judiciary to interfere and compel the authorities to act within the four corners of law within their respective jurisdictions. On the facts and the legal propositions as propounded by the apex court in the case of Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); [1992] UPTC 971 (SC), the court has to see whether on the grounds aforesaid, the goods could have been detained or seizure order could have been passed. We, therefore, overrule the objection of the State that the writ petition would not be maintainable in such a situation. A perusal of the detention orders aforesaid along with the show-cause notice and the order of seizure shows that apparently on lurching suspicion that the goods being transported were not the same goods as purchased against 6R mentioned in transfer invoice and also because allegedly it was not practicable to make purchases from 38 persons at the same rate and on the same day, the order of seizure has been passed. Attention of the court has been drawn to the entries made in the transfer invoice and form 9R, which have been reproduced by us in the earlier part of this order. Entries in the transfer invoice mention the amounts of commission, cartage, testing, stamp and cost of drum/mandi fee separately whereas in form 9R, entries against cartage and testing were left blank and only against entry of stamp, a sum of Rs. 1,146 was shown. The total amount shown in transfer invoice is Rs. Entries in the transfer invoice mention the amounts of commission, cartage, testing, stamp and cost of drum/mandi fee separately whereas in form 9R, entries against cartage and testing were left blank and only against entry of stamp, a sum of Rs. 1,146 was shown. The total amount shown in transfer invoice is Rs. 95,66,386 and the same was the amount shown in form 9R. Cost of drum/mandi fee was shown as Rs. 2,33,100 and this was also the amount shown against entry mandi fee in form 9R. Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid entries in the documents would reveal that there was no discrepancy worth the name, at least prima facie to raise a plea that it was a case of not keeping the accounts properly or that goods under the consignment were different from the one mentioned in forms 6R and 9R. Besides, in view of the circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and also in view of the fact that the goods were accompanied by relevant documents, namely, prescribed transfer challan dated July 20, 2010 containing all the details of goods, statutory form prescribed for transport of goods, mandi gate pass dated July 20, 2010, mandi 9R dated July 20, 2010 and GR dated July 20, 2010 along with the copy of agreement with ex-U.P. principal for purchase and dispatch of goods, they could neither have been detained nor seized. The question whether it was an inter-State sale or intra-State sale, obviously cannot be decided by the mobile squad and it is for the assessing authority to record a finding on the aforesaid issue during the course of assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon various interim orders passed by this court in different writ petitions dealing with the same issue. In one of the petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No. 5624 (M/B) of 2006 in re : Rapti Commission Agency v. State of U.P., the court also took into consideration the plea that 74 drums of mentha oil could not have been purchased in one day from the farmers and the fact that the mentha oil was purchased by the petitioners on behalf of ex-U.P. principal. The High Court passed an interim order dated December 12, 2006, directing the release of goods without any security. This case is applicable in the present case also. The High Court passed an interim order dated December 12, 2006, directing the release of goods without any security. This case is applicable in the present case also. Their Lordships also considered the decision in Girdharilal Jiwanlal v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), Nagpur reported in [1957] 8 STC 732 (Bom) and the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Travancore Rubber and Tea Co. reported in [1967] 20 STC 520 (SC); Supreme Court on Sales Tax Compilation, Volume 2, 1814 and its judgment and order dated September 21, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 5169 (M/B) of 2006 Jai Narain v. State of U.P. The special leave petition against the said order of release was dismissed by the apex court. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Shaw Scott Distilleries Private Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Mobile Squad, Mathura reported in [1983] 54 STC 344 (All); [1983] UPTC 387 (All). In this case, a Division Bench of this court held that the power to seize goods under section 13A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is conferred upon an officer authorised in that behalf where either the goods cannot be traced to any bona fide dealer or where it is doubtful if the goods are properly accounted for by any dealer in his accounts, registers or other documents maintained in the course of his business. If these two conditions exist, it would be open to seize the goods and not otherwise. Where, as in the present case the only allegation contained in the notice given to the petitioners was that the transaction was one of intra-State sale and the value of the goods appeared to have been shown at an amount lower than what it should properly, have been, action under the aforesaid provisions cannot be sustained. Where, as in the present case the only allegation contained in the notice given to the petitioners was that the transaction was one of intra-State sale and the value of the goods appeared to have been shown at an amount lower than what it should properly, have been, action under the aforesaid provisions cannot be sustained. Section 48(2) of the Act also reads as under : "Where any officer referred to in sub-section (1) has reason to believe that the goods found in any vehicle, vessel, building or place are not traced to any bona fide dealer or that it is doubtful if such goods are properly accounted for by any dealer in his accounts, registers or other documents, maintained in the ordinary course of his business, he shall have power to seize such goods, and the remaining provisions of this section shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such seizure." In the present case, it cannot be said that either of the two conditions given in the aforesaid section 48(2) of the Act did exist. We are, therefore, prima facie satisfied that neither the goods could have been detained by the mobile squad nor the seizure order have been passed on such not existent facts and incorrect reading of entries in 6R and 9R and merely on conjectures and surmises that purchases could not have been done in one day. The writ petition is, therefore, admitted. Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. Let counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. List the application for interim relief for orders immediately thereafter. In the meantime, the goods shall be released forthwith, say within three days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.