JUDGMENT (Prayer: Write Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the1st respondent in his proceedings in G.D.No.2905/2023-24 dated12.07.2023 and quash the goods detention order in O.R.No.2905/2023-24 dated 12.07.2023 and direct the 2nd respondent to release the detentiongoods as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu ValueAdded Tax Act, 2006.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings of the 1strespondent dated 12.07.2023 bearing G.D.No.2905/2023-24, to quash thesame and direct the 2nd respondent to release the detention goods asillegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value AddedTax Act, 2006. 2. The fact on record indicate that the vehicle bearing RegistrationNo.TN 31 CD 0115 was intercepted by the officers of the 2nd respondentand statement from the Driver of the lorry was recorded. The statementrecorded from the Driver of the lorry reads as under: 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid vehiclewas carrying diesel, which is highly inflammable. Since the road betweenCuddalore and Seerkazhi are under repair, the Driver took a differentroute and when the Driver was taking food, the Roving Squad came andseized the vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that theexplanation offered by the petitioner has not been accepted, as thevehicle had taken a different route to avoid jerk to reduce the risk of thevehicle catching fire while in transit. 5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents on theother hand would submit that the impugned order detaining the goodsand imposing penalty twice the amount of duty was well reasoned anddoes not require any interference. That apart, it is submitted that thepetitioner has alternate remedy before the Commissioner and therefore,the petitioner should be relegated to work out the remedy before theAppellate Commissioner. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counselfor the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing forthe respondents. 7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the petitioner is willing to pay the duty. As far as the penalty isconcerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner may be relegated to work out the remedy before the AppellateCommissioner. Fact remains that the movement of diesel was notcovered with proper invoice and transport document. 7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the petitioner is willing to pay the duty. As far as the penalty isconcerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner may be relegated to work out the remedy before the AppellateCommissioner. Fact remains that the movement of diesel was notcovered with proper invoice and transport document. In any event, thepetitioner was liable to pay the tax under Tamil Nadu Value Added TaxAct, 2006, on the goods. Thus, there is really no concession in the offermade by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. At the same time, considering the fact that the product in thevehicle is diesel which is prone to inflammable, Court is inclined to orderprovisional release of the vehicle, subject to the petitioner paying thedisputed tax that has been arrived in the impugned order and a furthersum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards security penaltyimposed within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. 9. The amounts to be paid by the petitioner pursuant to this ordercan be appropriated finally subject to final outcome of the proposedappeal to be filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also execute abond to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent within such period. Subjectto the compliance of the conditions stipulated above, the above vehicle ofthe petitioner shall be provisionally released. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with theabove observations. No costs.