Judgment:
P.A. Choudary, J.
1. The petitioner is a businessman of Kerala dealing in raw cashewnuts and having a factory in Tamil Nadu and purchasing raw cashewnuts in Andhra. While the petitioner was transporting by road on lorry, TNK 6778, raw cashewnuts which he had purchased in Andhra without paying purchase tax, the lorry was intercepted, seized and detained at Nellore on 21st September, 1984 by the commercial tax authorities. The authorities had seized the goods on the ground that the goods have not suffered purchase tax. It is never in dispute that the first purchase of raw cashewnuts was subject to payment of purchase tax and that these purchases made by the petitioner from Andhra are liable to payment of such tax, and that no tax has been paid on them. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the authorities in writing expressing 'his willingness to pay the tax due on the above load and the penalties levied by your department as per the provisions of the Act'. But the authorities did not release the goods on the ground that they wanted to take action under the provisions of the Act for confiscation of the goods also. Aggrieved by the refusal of the authorities to release of goods, the petitioner who, with utter impunity violated a fiscal law of the State, had filed the above writ petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained rule nisi and release of the illicitly transported goods. Under the interim directions given by this Court, the petitioner had recovered back possession of the seized goods but had furnished security for the payment of penalty. The contention in the writ petition is that section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act which authorises specified Commercial Tax Officers to seize and confiscate goods which are found in any office, shop, godown, vehicle, vessel or in other place of business or any building or place of the dealer, but not accounted by the dealer in his accounts, registers and other documents maintained in the course of his business, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. There was a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 3515 of 1970 dated 10th November, 1971 (Kotha Rama Doss v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 53 (AP) [App.]) which is in support of the contention of the petitioner. But the view taken in that case was distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh . In the Division Bench case the validity of sections 28(6) and 29(3) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act has been upheld as necessary and essential provisions for regulating and enforcing a fiscal enactment like the Sales Tax Act. We are in entire agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench. As Burke said, it is hard to tax and also to please as it is difficult to love and to be wise. But the burden of modern civilization must be borne by the system of levy of taxes. There is, therefore, no escape from paying taxes. That is the reason why courts will be most reluctant to interfere in this area of the State activity particularly in favour of these open sales tax evaders and on the unspecified ground of article 14. Following that judgment of the Division Bench, we dismiss this writ petition with costs. The commercial tax authorities will now initiate expeditiously confiscation and penalty proceedings and complete them as expeditiously as possible. Advocate's fee Rs. 250.
2. Writ petition dismissed.