M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. v. State of U.P & Anr.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the entire action of the respondents in intercepting the vehicle and, thereafter, taking proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Act are ex-facie illegal and contrary to the facts.

Submissions have been made that insofar as the allegation pertaining to there being difference in the declared weight and the actual weight of the goods is concerned, the plea raised by the petitioner was accepted, however, the existence of the petitioner was sought to be questioned and even the ownership of the goods of the petitioner was sought to be disputed in the order impugned, which has no basis.

Further submissions have been made that at the time of interception of the vehicle, the firm was registered as the interception took place on 11.03.2025 and suspension was with effect from 12.03.2025. Further, the suspension itself has been revoked on 28.03.2025 by the Jurisdictional Authority at Delhi and, as such, the plea raised in this regard apparently has no substance.

Regarding the existence of the firm, it was submitted that the order passed dropping of proceedings for cancellation of registration clearly records the existence of the firm and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard also apparently has no substance and, therefore, the entire action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the action was initiated based on valid reasons and merely because subsequently the registration has been restored, cannot vitiate the proceedings and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Apparently, the vehicle was inspected and when no deficiency was found during the course of the inspection, the reason indicated was that the consignee of goods not existed at business place, as to what was the basis for the Assistant Commissioner at the time of interception of the vehicle to indicate the existence of petitioner no. 1 at the declared business place, nothing has been placed on record.

Further, when the notice under Section 129(3) of the Central Act was issued, an additional ground pertaining to the difference in the declared weight and actual weight of the goods to the tune of about 860 Kg. against a declared weight of 29750 Kg. was raised.

The petitioner filed its response, inter alia, indicating the existence of the firm and claiming the ownership of the goods for the purpose of Section 129(1)(a) of the State Act, however, the order impugned has been passed, wherein though the reason indicated qua the difference of weight has been accepted, the ownership of petitioner for the purpose under Section 129(1)(a) of the State Act has been declined.

The material available on record, clearly establishes that the action of the respondents apparently is contrary to the material which was placed on record by the petitioner. The material clearly indicated the existence of the firm, which aspect has been established by order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Jurisdictional Authority, inter alia, indicating that at the time of visit at the premises, the proprietor was available and the firm was found existing with signboard at the given registered address.

Besides the fact that on the date when the vehicle was intercepted, the registration was in existence, which stood suspended on the next date and, therefore, on that count also, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained.

The action initiated by the respondents being contrary to the material and circumstances available on record, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The orders dated 12.03.2025 passed under Section 129(1) of the State Act and 19.03.2025 passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Act are quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to release the vehicle UP14PT7650 as well as goods detained by order dated 12.03.2025 to the petitioner forthwith. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Sandeep/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad