AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
The short question which arises for determination is - what is the effect of the failure on the part of the transporter to account for the goods he is carrying. A transporter is not the "dealer". He is not found to be a dealer in this case. In the event of his failure to account for the goods he is carrying, seizure of the vehicle and the goods is permissible. To this extent there is no controversy. The issue is - whether the transporter is liable to pay Sales Tax if he is not the dealer ? If so, to what extend is his liability?
This question has not been answered by the High Court in the impugned judgment by cryptic reasoning the High Court has refused to interfere saying that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Provisional Authority.
Hence the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petitions (Nos. 13123 and 13124 of 2004) are ordered to be restored.
We direct the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions in accordance with law. Above civil appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.