JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The brief facts arising under the impugned order are as follows:- The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Regn.No.kA 01 AA 3447. The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of transporting goods by lorry. On 1.2.2012, the diesel generator engine was entrusted to the petitioner for transporting the same from the State of Maharashtra to the Union Territory of Puducherry. The consignor is M/s.Kirloskar Oil Engines Private Limited. The consignee is M/s.Sun Beam Generators at Puducherry. When the petitioner's driver entered at Hosur, the authorities verified the consignment documents at the check post. After the said inspection, the petitioner's vehicle was permitted to pass through the State of Tamil Nadu by the Hosur Check Post by affixing their official seal on all the documents submitted by the petitioner's driver. When the vehicle arrived at Kandamanglam check post at Villupuram District, which is the exit point in State of Tamil Nadu, another check was carried out by the 3rd respondent herein. It was found out that the driver petitioner had not obtained transit pass at the entry check post at Hosur as contemplated under Section 17 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 enabling the transport vehicle to pass through the State of Tamil Nadu. By mistake and also due to ignorance, the driver of the petitioner has not obtained transit pass and also under a bonafide belief that all the documents carried on by him were proper and lawful. Without considering the objection of the petitioner's driver, the 3rd respondent detained the vehicle at Kandamangalam Check Post and passed order dated 6.2.2012 in G.D.No.209/2011-12 demanding tax with a penalty of Rs.3,08,418 from the consignor and the consignee and the vehicle was also detained. So, immediately the petitioner made a representation dated 8.2.2012 to the Joint Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Vellore Division and sought the release of vehicle and also the said Joint Commissioner -4th respondent also not passed any order. Further, the petitioner also made a representation dated 13.2.2012 for release of vehicle. The 2nd respondent also has not considered the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for release of the vehicle. 3. Further, the petitioner also made a representation dated 13.2.2012 for release of vehicle. The 2nd respondent also has not considered the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for release of the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner herein is a mere trespasser and the petitioner got all the documents with him, which were considered by the Check Post at Hosur and detaining the petitioner's vehicle would cause great hardship to the petitioner as he is a mere transporter. If there is any violation of the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities can proceed against the consignor and consignment goods, which is detained by the authorities and the value of the goods detained is also much more than the value of the tax liability. Therefore, the respondents are wrong in unnecessarily detaining the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner requested the Court to release the goods vehicle. 4. The learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents detained the goods that also issued a notice to the consignor, but till today, the consignor has not responded. So, the order passed by the 3rd respondent is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the documents on record. 6. Section 67 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 deals with the procedure as to how the detained goods can be proceeded. In the present case, the petitioner is a mere transporter and he is transporting the goods and also possessed all the documents to transport the goods from the consignor and also where he is proceeding to consignee at Pondicherry. The goods were detained by the respondent authorities and it will protect the interest of revenue as the value of the detained goods is also much more than the value of tax involved in the present case. 7. When already interest of the respondents is well protected, it is unnecessary to detain the vehicle and the vehicle is only used for purpose of transporting the goods. Detaining the vehicle and keeping the same in the yard and exposing the same to sun and rain will certainly cause great prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner is only a transporter. 8. Detaining the vehicle and keeping the same in the yard and exposing the same to sun and rain will certainly cause great prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner is only a transporter. 8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, especially, when the interest of respondents is protected and also the respondents can proceed against the consignor, the impugned notice of the 3rd respondent dated 6.3.2012 in G.D.No.209/2011-12 is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA.01.AA.3347. It is also made clear that it is for the respondents to proceed against the goods, which is detained under the custody. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.