Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the notice, dated 20.1.2012, issued by the second respondent and to order the release of the goods vehicle, which had been detained, as per the said notice, and to order payment of compensation for the inconvenience and the financial loss caused to the petitioner, due to the detention of the said vehicle. 3. The petitioner is a Limited Company having its Head Office at Baroda, in the State of Gujarat. It is carrying on Engineering and Construction Business. As such, the petitioner Company had transported office furniture and certain other goods, to be used for its own use at Cuddalore, where the petitioner was executing works contract for Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited. While so, the goods vehicle, bearing registration No.HR-55-G-6913, carrying the goods in question, had been stopped and checked by the second respondent, at Pennaiyar Bridge Check Post, Alpet, Cuddalore. The second respondent had ordered the detention of the vehicle stating that the goods in question, originating from the state of Gujarat, moved through stock transfer note, is not supported by the necessary registration, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, in the state of Tamil Nadu and that the buyer is an unregistered dealer. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had appeared before the second respondent, on 20.1.2012, and had filed a written representation, explaining the purpose for transporting the goods in question, and had requested the second respondent to release the detained goods vehicle. However, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner and had issued the impugned notice, dated 20.1.2012, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,32,845/- to get the goods vehicle released. The amount of Rs.2,32,845/-directed to be paid by the petitioner included Rs.77,615/-, towards tax and Rs.1,55,230/-, towards compounding fee. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated, inter alia, that on verification, it had been noticed that the dealer had not applied for any registration in the State of Tamil Nadu. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated, inter alia, that on verification, it had been noticed that the dealer had not applied for any registration in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, it had been proved that the statement made in Form 402, stating that the petitioner had applied for registration, is a false endorsement. Therefore, a notice had been issued, on 10.1.2012, ordering the detention of the goods. However, till 19.1.2012, there was no representation from the petitioner. Only on 19.1.2012, an authorised person of the petitioner Company had enquired about the detention of goods vehicle in question. Thereafter, on 20.1.2012, objections had been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the consignee is in the process of establishing a Company at Cuddalore, in the state of Tamil Nadu and a proposal had been made to execute certain works contracts and that the registration would be obtained, at a later stage. 6. It had also been stated, in the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner, that the consignment in question was being transferred from the head office, for the purpose of opening an office at Cuddalore, and that the goods in question are not intended for sale. The delivery note in Form 402 is identical to form JJ used in the State of Tamil Nadu. It had also been stated that when no purchase or sale is made, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the question of detention of the goods, on the ground that the TIN had not been noted, is contrary to the provisions of the said Act. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it had been further stated that, after a careful consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner, a reply had been issued, on 20.1.2012. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, by producing incorrect and incomplete records. Therefore, it had been suspected that the petitioner had attempted to evade tax, as contemplated under Section 67(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, by producing incorrect and incomplete records. Therefore, it had been suspected that the petitioner had attempted to evade tax, as contemplated under Section 67(3)(b) of the Act. Further, as the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to compound the offence and a requisition was made to pay the amount of Rs.2,32,845/-, as per the notice, dated 20.1.2012, issued by the second respondent. 8. It had been further stated that the petitioner had not chosen to file any document in support of his claim that the goods had been transported in the process of establishing its unit in the state of Tamil Nadu, for its own use. Thus, it was clear that the petitioner had attempted to evade the payment of tax, as per the provisions of the the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Even though an opportunity had been offered to the petitioner to compound the offence, it was not availed by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned notice, dated 20.1.2012, issued by the second respondent, is illegal and void in the eye of law. When all the necessary documents were available with the petitioner, the act of the respondents in detaining the goods vehicle in question, is arbitrary in nature. 10. It had been further stated that the detention of the goods, without a prima facie finding that there had been a taxable sale in the State of Tamil Nadu, is arbitrary and illegal. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Tribunal had held, in SARAF TRADING CORPORATION Vs. SPECIAL ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHECK POST OFFICER (OUT), KANIYUR, (1997) 105 STC 0218) that the liability to pay advance tax would arise only if the Check Post Officer had rendered a prima facie finding that there had been a sale or a purchase, within the State of Tamil Nadu. SPECIAL ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHECK POST OFFICER (OUT), KANIYUR, (1997) 105 STC 0218) that the liability to pay advance tax would arise only if the Check Post Officer had rendered a prima facie finding that there had been a sale or a purchase, within the State of Tamil Nadu. It had also been held that if the dealer or the person concerned is not willing to compound the alleged offence, the only alternative is to initiate the process of prosecution against the offender and to punish him, if the offence alleged is established. Hence, the unilateral demand for the payment of a large sum of money, towards compounding fee, is unsustainable. 11. Further, in BANGALORE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY PVT. LTD., Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHECK POST THIRUMANGALAM AND OTHERS (1983 054 STC 0140), it had been held that the liability to pay tax can arise only when there is a completed transaction or sale or purchase and it would not arise in anticipation of a sale or purchase. When a concluded sale had not been established, a demand of compounding fee, at that stage, would not occur, unless and until the assessment to pay tax is concluded. There could be no levy of tax on assumption, expectancy or surmises. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in THE CHECK POST OFFICER, COIMBATORE AND OTHERS Vs. K.P.ABDULLA AND BROS. (1971) 027 STC 0001), wherein it had been held that Section 42(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which empowers the Check Post Officer to confiscate the goods and to levy penalty in lieu of confiscation, when in respect of the goods found in a vehicle the driver of the vehicle is not carrying with them the documents specified in the said section, is not a provision, which is ancillary or incidental to the power to tax sale of goods under entry 54 of the List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and is therefore, invalid. 13. In LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M.K.GUPTA (1994 AIR 787), it had been held that it had been accepted, both by the Supreme Court of India, as well as by the English Courts, that the State is liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the citizens due to arbitrary actions of its employees. 14. 13. In LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M.K.GUPTA (1994 AIR 787), it had been held that it had been accepted, both by the Supreme Court of India, as well as by the English Courts, that the State is liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the citizens due to arbitrary actions of its employees. 14. In P.GANGADHARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS ( AIR 1996 KER 71 ), the Kerala High Court had held that the State of Kerala was liable to pay compensation for the loss or injury suffered by its citizens due to arbitrary actions of its employees. 15. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in view of the above decisions, the respondents should be directed to release the goods vehicle in question and the goods, which were being transported by the said vehicle, and to pay compensation for the illegal detention of the vehicle in question. 16. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had been transporting the goods in question without any registration in the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, the petitioner was not in a position to furnish the relevant documents to support its claim that the goods were being transported to Cuddalore, for its own use. 17. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the moving of the goods, under stock transfer note, without specifying the value of the goods, by claiming that the goods are not meant for sale, is contrary to the relevant provisions of the law. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not committed an offence under the provisions of Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 18. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the act of the petitioner in transporting the goods, without proper records, is an attempt to evade payment of tax, as contemplated under section 67(3) (b) of the said Act. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 19. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 19. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner that the transfer of the goods in question is only a depot transfer cannot be accepted. 20. It had been admitted that the petitioner does not have a Branch Office at Cuddalore. Further, the petitioner had not been in a position to prove, prima facie, that the goods transported by the goods vehicle in question was for its own use at Cuddalore. Even though it may not be mandatory on the part of the petitioner to pay the compounding fee by accepting the liability, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim that the action of the second respondent, in issuing the impugned notice, dated 20.1.2012, is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to prove, by sufficient evidence, that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 21. It is also noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to file its objections to the goods detention notice, dated 10.1.2012, issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned notice, dated 20.1.2012, had been issued by the second respondent, as per the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 22. Further, the petitioner had approached this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without availing the alternative remedy available to it under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.