Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1414 (MP)

Hariom Floor & Oil Mill v. State of M. P.

2014-11-03

ROHIT ARYA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
Judgment Rohit Arya, J.:- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed for release of Tanker No. UP-83 T 2915 and also for amount of Rs. 1,68,679/- with interest deposited by the petitioner under coercion vide receipt No. Annexure P/2 allegedly shown to be under Section 57(8) of the Value Added Tax, 2002 as computation amount. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the M.P. Value Added Tax, 2002 (for short “VAT ”) having TIN No. 23275604869. Petitioner is engaged in business of purchase and sales of food grains, oil seeds and edible oil etc. As stated in the petitioner, petitioner maintains regular books of accounts of its sales and purchases. All purchases and sales are vouched by purchase and sales bills. Regular quarterly returns are filed under the provisions of VAT, Central Sales Tax and also under the Entry Tax laws of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. Petitioner (Consignor), for transportation and delivery of edible oil (mustered oil) to M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapur, Bhind (M.P.) (Consignee) on the basis of oral agreement to sale had loaded the same in Tanker No. UP-83 T 2915 of the ownership of Maa Bhagwati Roadlines, Transport Nagar, Agra on 22/7/2014. The aforesaid goods were having a weight of 140.50 qtl valued at Rs. 9,30,110/-. The sale bill as well as bilty based thereupon were also prepared and were with the driver of the vehicle while the tanker was dispatched from Sabalgarh for Deenapur on 22/7/2014. On the way at Jora-Morena Road, respondent No. 3 stopped the tanker. On being asked, the driver has submitted that following documents:- “(1) Bill NO. 102/22-07-2014 of M/s Hariom Floor & Oil Mill, Sabalgarhy for Rs. 9,30,110/- in favour of M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapura, Bhind Affixing rubber stamp “Local Good for Sabalgarh. Entry Tax not paid.” (2) GR No. 111 dated 22-07-2014 Sabalgarh to Bhind of Maa Bhagwati Roadlines, Transport Nagar, Agra containing Mustered Oil-140.50 qtl. To pay freight Rs. 7,000/- by Tanker No. UP-83 T 2915 consignor M/s Hariom Floor & Oil Mill, Sabalgarh and Consignee M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapura, Bhind. (3) Letter dated 22-07-2014 of M/s Hariom Floor & Oil Mill, Sabalgarh to M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapura, Bhind.” 4. To pay freight Rs. 7,000/- by Tanker No. UP-83 T 2915 consignor M/s Hariom Floor & Oil Mill, Sabalgarh and Consignee M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapura, Bhind. (3) Letter dated 22-07-2014 of M/s Hariom Floor & Oil Mill, Sabalgarh to M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapura, Bhind.” 4. Suspecting evasion of tax, tanker was asked to be kept at Police Station, Morena. On 26/7/2014, a notice was issued with name of the transporter but served on driver calling upon him to show cause why penalty of Rs. 2,81,135/- be not imposed on it. On 26/7/2014 itself penalty was imposed of the same amount in exercise of powers under Section 57(8)(ii) of VAT. On deposit of Rs. 1,68,679/-, a receipt dated 26/7/2014 in the name of transporter C/o Consignor/petitioner's name was issued purportedly as composite tax under Section 57(8) of VAT. Order for release of Tanker was issued on 26/7/2014 vide Annexure R/10, however, the aforesaid letter addressed to police station Morena bore another stipulation that Tanker was already been released but since the tanker was stopped and checked by CTO, Circle, Morena, therefore, the same shall be released on the direction of said authority. Further, according to respondents, there was outstanding amount of tax against the consignor M/s Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenapura, Bhind and as it did not deposit the aforesaid amount it became defaulter, its TIN number was cancelled. Revenue Recovery Certificate under Section 146 of MPLRC was also issued by respondent No. 4, which is filed as Annexure R/11 alongwith the return. In terms of Section 147 of MPLRC, therefore, the Tanker as well as the goods were attached by the order dated 31/7/2014. 5. Before adverting to rival submissions of the parties, it is expedient to refer to relevant provisions as contained in Section 57(2),(5)(6)(8)(17) of the VAT. “57. In terms of Section 147 of MPLRC, therefore, the Tanker as well as the goods were attached by the order dated 31/7/2014. 5. Before adverting to rival submissions of the parties, it is expedient to refer to relevant provisions as contained in Section 57(2),(5)(6)(8)(17) of the VAT. “57. Establishment of Check posts and inspection of goods while in movement:- (1) xxxx xxxx (2) The driver or the person in-charge of a vehicle or carrier or of goods in movement (hereinafter referred to as the transporter) shall- (a) carry with him an invoice, bill or challan or any other document and prescribed declaration forms issued by the consignor or consignee of the goods in movement and challan, bilties or any other document issued by the transporter; (b) stop the vehicle or carrier at every check-post or bring and stop the vehicle or carrier at the nearest check-post, while entering and leaving the limits of the State, set up under sub-section (1); (c) furnish all the documents including prescribed declaration forms relating to the goods before the check post officer; (d) give all the information relating to the goods; and (e) all the inspection of the goods by the check post officer or any other person authorised by the check post officer; provided that the documents including prescribed declaration forms shall be required to be carried and/or furnished only in respect of the goods as may be notified by the State Government. Provided further that if the transporter transporting goods by a road on which check post or barrier is not established, furnishes the documents including declaration form specified in clause (a) at the nearest Commercial Tax Office, immediately after entry into the State of Madhya Pradesh or before exit from the State, he shall be deemed to have complied with the requirement made under clause (b). (3) xxxx xxxx (4) xxxx xxxx (5) Where any goods are in movement within the territory of the State of Madhya Pradesh, any officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Commercial Officer, as may be authorised by the Commissioner, may for the purposes of this Act, stop the vehicle or the carrier or the person carrying such goods, for inspection, at any place or inspect such goods and the documents relating to the goods which are in the possession or control of a transporting agency or person or other such bailee and the provisions of sub- section (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply. (6) Where any goods in movement are not supported by documents as referred to in sub-section (2) or documents produced appear false or forged, the check post officer or the officer empowered under sub-section (5), for reasons to be recorded in writing may- (a) direct the transporter not to part with the goods in any manner including re-transporting or rebooking, till a verification is done or an enquiry is made, which shall not take more than seven days; (b) detain or seize the goods or the vehicle or carrier along with the goods and shall give a receipt of the goods or the vehicle or carrier along with the goods, if seized, to the person from whose possession or control they are seized; (c) release the goods or the vehicle or carrier along with the goods seized in clause (b) in favour of the transporter, during the pendency of the proceedings if adequate security in the form of cash security or irrevocable bank guarantee of the amount equal to the penalty leviable under sub-section (8) or (10) is furnished. (7) xxxx xxxx (8) The check post officer or the officer empowered under sub-section (5), after having given the transporter a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after having held such enquiry as he may deem fit, shall,- (i) release the goods or the vehicle or carrier along with the goods in favour of the transporter, if he is satisfied that no violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) has taken place; or (ii) impose, if he is not satisfied, on him for possession or movement of goods, whether seized or not, in violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) or for submission of false or forged documents or declaration, a penalty equal to maximum (five times) of the amount of tax which would have been payable if the goods were sold within the State on the date of inspection : Provided that the amount of penalty shall not be less than (five times) of the amount of tax. (9) to (16) xxxx xxxx (17) Subject to such restrictions and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, a transporter, on whom a penalty has been imposed under sub-section (8), may opt to pay in lieu of penalty a lump sum amount, which shall be (three times) the amount of tax referred to in sub- section (8) and once the transporter has exercised the option he shall not have any right to challenge the order of penalty in any forum. Explanation- (i) Vehicle or carrier means: xxxx (ii) Transporter shall include the owner of the vehicle carrying the goods, whether an individual, a firm, association, society or company, and the manager, if any, of such owner; Aforesaid provisions provide for a detailed procedure to be followed for inspection of goods while in movement and imposition of penalty in the event of evasion of tax. As such, in fact and in effect, provisions contained therein besides being part of fiscal statute, also contained mandate of penal consequences. As such provisions are required to be given strict literal interpretation unless the context otherwise required. As such, in fact and in effect, provisions contained therein besides being part of fiscal statute, also contained mandate of penal consequences. As such provisions are required to be given strict literal interpretation unless the context otherwise required. The provisions quoted hereinabove prescribe:- (i) that the driver or the person, in charge of vehicle shall carry with him an invoice, bill or challan or any other document and prescribed declaration forms issued by the consignor or consignee of the goods in movement and challan, bilties or any other document issued by the transporter; (ii) Where any goods are in movement within the territory of the State of Madhya Pradesh, any officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Commercial Officer, as may be authorised by the Commissioner, may for the purposes of this Act, stop the vehicle for inspection of goods and the documents relating to the goods in the possession or control of a transporting agency; (iii) if goods in movement are not supported by documents as referred to in sub-section (2) or documents produced appear false or forged, the check post officer or the officer empowered under sub-section (5), for reasons to be recorded in writing may direct the transporter not to part with the goods in any manner including re-transporting or rebooking, till a verification is done or an enquiry is made, which shall not take more than seven days (provisions contained in clause (b) and (c) of Sub-Section 6 are not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition); (iv) thereafter, affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after having held such enquiry, as he may deem fit, the officer concerned may release the goods or vehicle, if he satisfied that no violation of provisions of sub- section (2) has taken place or if he is not satisfied, he may impose penalty for possession or movement of goods, whether seized or not, in violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) or for submission of false or forged documents or declaration, a penalty equal to maximum (five times) of the amount of tax which would have been payable if the goods were sold within the State on the date of inspection. 6. 6. However, Section 57(17) of VAT provides for an option to the transporter on whom penalty has been imposed under Sub-section (8) to pay a lump sum amount in lieu of penalty which shall be twice the amount of tax referred to in sub-section (8) and once the transporter has exercised the option, he shall not have any right to challenge the order of penalty in any forum. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as required under Section 57(2) of VAT, the duly prepared bill and bilties were with the driver in respect of mustered oil loaded in the tanker dispatched on 22/7/2014 from Sabalgarh for Deenapur and was produced by him at Jora- Morena road where the tanker was stopped for checking by the concerned officer. It is submitted that the concerned officer neither issued any notice to the transporter or to the petitioner and contrary to the procedure prescribed in Section 57 of VAT, passed the order of penalty. That apart neither any enquiry was held nor documents found to be forged and false were verified. On mere surmises and conjectures conclusions were drawn prejudicial and detrimental to the interest and right of the transporter and the petitioner. Petitioner on being informed by driver, had rushed the place where he was forced to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,68,679/- on 26/7/2014. Even then, the vehicle was not released and same was attached on 31/7/2014. Such circumstances led him to file this petition. It is further contended that apart from the fact that concerned authority has done violence with the statutory provisions contained in various sub-sections of Section 57 of VAT relating to procedure prescribed for imposition of penalty, has in fact and in effect abdicated his authority in the matter of imposition of penalty as cyclostyled printed orders with fill in the blanks have been passed having penal consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Asstt. Commissioner, Anti-evasion Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur Vs. Amtek India Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 407 to bolster his submissions that such mechanical exercise of powers by Commercial Tax Officer cannot be said to have subserved the public interest much less the interest of the revenue. Commissioner, Anti-evasion Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur Vs. Amtek India Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 407 to bolster his submissions that such mechanical exercise of powers by Commercial Tax Officer cannot be said to have subserved the public interest much less the interest of the revenue. It is further contended that the order of penalty lacks bona fides and smoke of arbitrariness, unreasonableness with total non-application of mind and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. Para 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “15. In this case though the action of the assessing officer concerned, in overlooking the documents produced coming to the conclusion about manipulation appears to be totally uncalled for and without any reasonable basis. This is a case where the officer should have been more careful and should not have acted in a manner as if he was a bloodhound and not a watchdog of Revenue. It is unfortunate that in large number of cases, orders totally bereft of rationality are being passed. They do not in any manner serve public interest, much less the interest of Revenue. 16. Therefore, while holding that the action of the assessing authority was clearly unjustified, we direct deletion of the direction for imposition of cost. We, however, make it clear that in future if any such action comes to the notice of the courts/authorities, appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law and the observations made in this case about lack of bona fide shall also be a factor to be taken note of.” 8. It is further submitted that aforesaid observation of the Hon. Supreme Court is in the context of imposition of penalty under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, where the Rajasthan High Court had indicted the revenue authorities, who were found negligent with its authority in the matter of imposition of penalty and passing order of punishment in abuse of their authority on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para 5 and 6 of the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Asstt. Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur Vs. M/s. Amtek India Ltd. Bhiwadi, (2006) 3 RLW (Raj.) 2077 confirmed by Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Asstt. Commissioner (supra) read as under:- “(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para 5 and 6 of the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Asstt. Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur Vs. M/s. Amtek India Ltd. Bhiwadi, (2006) 3 RLW (Raj.) 2077 confirmed by Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Asstt. Commissioner (supra) read as under:- “(5). One fails to understand how learned CTO without holding any inquiry these documents produced by assessee/driver of the vehicle at the time of checking, the invoice of prior date could not per se be treated as non- genuine or forged document. This Court summoned the record of the case and perused the original record. The documents including the declaration issued by the Sales Tax Authorities of both the states clearly establish that transit and transaction was perfectly genuine and there was absolutely no reason fro the Assessing Authority to just go by fidget of his imagination that merely because the invoice bears the date prior in point of time, such document should be held to be non-genuine so as to attract heavy penalty of 30% of the value of goods under Sec. 78(5) of the Act. Such flimsy and unjustified stand on the part of authorities of sales tax department seriously impede and jeopardize the free flow of trade in the country which is the constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The course left open to the assessee after imposition of such illegal penalties is nothing but to approach the higher appellate forums and more often than not litigation travels upto this court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the entire process, it is only the assessee who suffers, but the authority of the department who imposes such penalty on flimsy grounds is not held accountable at all despite causing all such litigation, loss of productive man hours and money. (6) It is indeed unfortunate that such authorities go scot free taking shelter of good faith clause whereas in fact they have not acted in good faith at all while imposing such penalty. Such a provision is contained in Section 91 of the RST Act, 1994 which says that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer or employee of the State Government for anything which is done or intended to be done under this Act or Rules made thereunder in 'good faith'. Such a provision is contained in Section 91 of the RST Act, 1994 which says that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer or employee of the State Government for anything which is done or intended to be done under this Act or Rules made thereunder in 'good faith'. However, if such good faith is ex-facie not maintained and not shown by the authorities in the orders, it would be unjustified, in the opinion of this Court, to extend this protection to such erring officers.” With the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the contrary, counsel for State by referring to the return and the documents annexed thereto, submitted that the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of VAT has been duly complied with in the matter of issuance of notice to the transporter and imposition of penalty. It is submitted that as the petitioner had opted to deposit a lump sum amount as provided for under Section 57(17) of VAT as evident from Annexure P/2, the receipt of deposit he is precluded from challenging the order of penalty. That apart, it is submitted that though a communication was made to the police station, Morena for release of vehicle where it was stationed; however, as it was informed that since consignee was in arrears of tax and goods in transportation were of the consignee, therefore, the order of attachment was passed on 31/7/2014. With the aforesaid submission, it is prayed that petition be dismissed. 10. Heard. 11. Section 57 of VAT deals with establishment of check post and inspection of goods while in movement and inter alia provides a complete procedure in the matter of imposition of penalty. In the event it is found that goods in movement are not supported by documents as referred to in sub- section (2) or documents produced appear to be false or forged as contained in sub-section (8) of Section 57 of VAT, make the transporter liable for penalty to the extent of maximum 5 times of the amount of tax payment on goods. 12. According to Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), the word “false” has two distinct well-recognised meanings: (I) intentionally or knowingly or negligently untrue; (2) untrue by mistake or accident, or honestly after the exercise of reasonable care. 12. According to Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), the word “false” has two distinct well-recognised meanings: (I) intentionally or knowingly or negligently untrue; (2) untrue by mistake or accident, or honestly after the exercise of reasonable care. A thing is called “false” when it is done, or made, with knowledge, actual or constructive, that it is untrue or illegal, or is said to be done falsely when the meaning is that the party is in fault for its error. 13. Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sanjiv Fabrics, (2010) 9 SCC 630 had held that while examining whether mens rea is an essential element of an offence created under a taxing statute, regard must be had to the following factors:- (i) the object and scheme of the statute; (ii) the language of the section; and (iii) the nature of penalty. 14. VAT is a piece of fiscal legislation for imposition of tax, a compulsory exaction of money with no corresponding obligation, which is unavoidable. Section 57 of VAT unambiguously couched in the language for imposition of penalty maximum of 5 times of tax payable if the goods were sold within the State on the date of inspection and penalty is either for the reason that goods in movement are not supported by documents or the document so produced appear to be false or forged. Applying the aforesaid parameters, this Court is of the opinion that provisions contained in Section 57 of VAT involves an element of mens rea as it is well settled principle that there is a presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a statutory offence, but this can always be rebutted by expressed words of a statute creating the offence or by necessary implications: AIR 1965 SC 722 referred to. A careful reading of Section 57(6) read with Section 57(8) of the Act, suggests that in the event goods in movement are not supported by documents or documents produced appear false or forged, the inevitable conclusion is of commission of offence entailing maximum five times penalty of the amount of tax payable on such goods if sold within the State. Hence, the erring person; transporter, is put to strict liability. Hence, the erring person; transporter, is put to strict liability. Upon reading of Section 57 of the Act in entirety, there appears to be no scope to rebut the presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence as contemplated under Section 57(6) of the Act. As such, the scope of enquiry required to be held under Section 57(8) of the Act is also to ascertain as to whether in a given situation the goods in movement were without documents or with such documents which appear to be false or forged on account of an involuntarily or a voluntarily act with the knowledge of the consequences flowing therefrom, apart from the enquiry as regards suspicion that the documents produced were actually false or forged. No enquiry of the aforesaid nature is found to have been conducted by the concerned officer. 15. That apart, the concerned authority is under an obligation to record reasons in writing as provided for in sub-section (6) before directing treatment with the vehicle and goods as contemplated under clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereunder. Sub-section (8) of Section 57 obliges the concerned authority to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the transporter and hold an enquiry before resorting to imposition of penalty. The aforesaid requirements are mandatory in nature to establish the allegations related to submission of false or forged documents in relation to goods in movement. Neither, the notices to the transporter nor satisfaction to be recorded after due enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (8) can be said to be a empty formality which can be waived by the concerned authority by issuing an order in a cyclostyle format mechanically. The concerned authority is obliged to issue notice to the transporter for making a representation to produce documents and lead evidence so that he may avail the opportunity to put forth his submission and produce oral and documentary evidence to assert that documents in relation to goods in movement were not false and forged. These twin requirements flowing from the aforesaid provisions are sine qua non of principles of natural justice, as well. 16. The enquiry as contemplated under Section 57(8) of VAT is an enquiry of a serious nature and not a empty formality. These twin requirements flowing from the aforesaid provisions are sine qua non of principles of natural justice, as well. 16. The enquiry as contemplated under Section 57(8) of VAT is an enquiry of a serious nature and not a empty formality. The concerned authority has to apply its mind to the evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry by the transporter and thereafter upon critical evaluation of the same, the authority is required to conclude as to whether the documents produced in relation to goods in movement could be said to be false or forged entailing the liability of penalty. Thereafter, before passing the order of penalty under Section 57(8) of the VAT, the concerned authority has to record its satisfaction upon assessment of evidence and conclusions as to whether in a given set of facts and circumstances, the penalty is warranted or not and if yes, to what extent as Section 57(8)(ii)contemplates penalty to the extent of maximum 5 times of the amount of tax which would be payable if the goods were sold in the State of Madhya Pradesh on the date of inspection. In this process of recording satisfaction, the concerned authority also has to apply it's mind as regard attributability of element of mens rea in aforesaid enquiry. Thereafter, the authority is required to pass the self contained order of penalty. 17. In the instant case, the tanker was stopped on 22/7/2014 at Jora -Morena road, it appears that on 22/7/2014 the statement of driver was recorded. Notice was issued on 26/7/2014 in the name of Maa Bhagwati Roadlines, Transport Nagar, Agra which is shown to be served upon him through driver on 26/7/2014 who was with the tanker in question at Jora-Morena Road., therefore, it is apparent that the driver who was with the tanker since 22/7/2014, when the same was detained, was made to sign this notice and the same was treated to have been served upon the transporter. There is nothing on record to suggest that the notice was ever dispatched or served upon the transporter at Agra. Under such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination the transporter could be said to have been served with the notice for enquiry under Section 57(8) of the Act. There is nothing on record to suggest that the notice was ever dispatched or served upon the transporter at Agra. Under such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination the transporter could be said to have been served with the notice for enquiry under Section 57(8) of the Act. There is nothing on record to suggest that any enquiry whatsoever was held to substantiate the allegation that the documents related to loaded tanker and carried by the driver i.e. bill and bilty were scribed by the same person which led to formation of the belief by the authority concerned that the aforesaid documents were false or forged. As such, there was no enquiry at all and the suspicion raised by the concerned authority was ultimately construed as concluded fact to justify imposition of penalty of Rs.2,81,135/- under Section 57(8)(ii) of the VAT. 18. On 26/7/2014 itself, the penalty order has been passed. There is nothing on record that reasons were recorded by the concerned authority under Section 57(6)of VAT that documents produced were false or forged. Both notice dated 26/7/2014 and order dated 26/7/2014 bore the reason for passing of penalty order to the following effect:- XXXX XXXX XXXX 19. The penalty order (Annexure R/8) is a cyclostyle form with fill in gapes. There is no record of enquiry produced or referred to in the counter affidavit in the context of aforesaid decision. It appears that aforesaid part in the impugned order is extracted from the so called statement of driver allegedly recorded on 22/7/2014. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that concerned authority has acted in an arbitrary manner and in fact abdicated its authority in the matter of passing of order of penalty without enquiry and without adhering to the procedure as contemplated under Section 57(8) of the VAT. It is shocking to note that order imposing penalty has been passed in a printed format by showing the amount of penalty which at no stretch of imagination can be said to be an order required to be passed under Section 57(8) of the VAT. This Court deprecates such highhandedness and whimsical exercise of power by the concerned authority in the matter of imposing penalty upon transporter without even serving the transporter with notice much less affording an opportunity of hearing in the enquiry required to be held. This Court deprecates such highhandedness and whimsical exercise of power by the concerned authority in the matter of imposing penalty upon transporter without even serving the transporter with notice much less affording an opportunity of hearing in the enquiry required to be held. There is nothing on record in support of conclusion drawn by the authority concerned that the documents produced were prepared by the same person. Mere self styled observations without anything more on record, it cannot be said that documents produced were false and forged. The aforesaid decision is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, mere presumption that both documents are written by same person by itself do not tantamount that documents so produced were false or forged. Such slip shod consequences on the part of concerned authority, speaks volumes about vindictiveness in the matter of exercise of powers entailing penal consequences. 21. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no other alternative, than to quash the penalty order dated 26/7/2014 being in violation of the provisions as contained under Section 57 of the Act. Accordingly, it is quashed. Consequently, the alleged deposit of Rs.2,81,135/- purportedly under Section 57(17) of the Act, which the petitioner claims that he was forced to deposit, is found to be unjustified. Petitioner is held entitled for refund of the same. 22. The next issue for consideration before this Court is 'as to whether even after order of release of the tanker, Annexure R/10, the same could have been attached on 31/7/2014 purportedly on the ground that the consignee M/s Shri Jai Durga Oil Industries, Deenpura, Etawah Road, Bhind since was in arrears of taxes and as goods after dispatched by the petitioner, became the property of the consignee, therefore, the aforesaid tax dues can be recovered by invoking Section147 of the Act? To answer this question, it is required to be first addressed 'as to whether the goods dispatched by the petitioner/consignor while in transit, can be said to be the goods of the ownership of the consignee?' For this purpose provisions of Sale of Goods Act are required to be referred. Section 4 thereof defines Sale and Contract of Sale and clause (3) thereof provides 'where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is a sale'. Section 4 thereof defines Sale and Contract of Sale and clause (3) thereof provides 'where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is a sale'. The question whether a contract for the sale of goods does or does not pass the property in the goods from the buyer to the seller must in all cases be determined by the intention of parties to the contract, nature of transactions and terms and conditions of contract. Sale of Goods Act under various chapters and provisions contained thereunder deals with different situations to answer the aforesaid question, and therefore, by figment of thought to ascertain the ownership of goods which is involved in the realm of business transaction shall always be a dangerous phenomenon. Mere dispatch of goods by the seller therefore cannot lead one to form the opinion that the buyer has become owner of the goods as has been done in the instant case. This notion formed by the concerned authority suffers from misconception, lacking common sense and de hors the provisions of Sale of Goods Act. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the goods in transit in absence of any evidence as regards terms and conditions of sale for dispatch of the goods, cannot be said to be of the ownership of the consignee. Hence, the attachment of the tanker for the aforesaid reason is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 23. In the result, petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release the tanker U.P. 83 T 2915 forthwith and also refund the amount of penalty so deposited by the petitioner within three weeks. Concerned authority is always at liberty to take recourse to law in the present case and act accordingly.