Full Judgment
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. On request the petition is finally heard.
2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern Amrik Singh is its proprietor. The office is located at Indore. The petitioner claims to be a public transporter and carries goods for hire from one place to another. On September 17, 1992, the petitioner carried the goods in its truck with all essential documents as required under the law. This truck was coming from Sangli to Indore. The respondent No. 1 found that the petitioner deviated from the normal route and opted to pass by another route. The respondent No. 1 checked the aforesaid truck in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29-CC of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, but found everything in order. The petitioner has averred essential facts in para 11 of its petition. These facts are not disputed by the respondents in their reply.
3. It is submitted before me that the proceedings of penalty have been initiated not on the basis of any lapse in terms of Section 29-CC of the aforesaid Act but on the basis of having taken the truck from a different route. Shri Chaphekar submits that this deviation did not give any cause of action in terms of Section 29-CC of the Act. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that if everything was alright, then there was no question of resorting to a longer route. According to the counsel it is this diversion which furnished the cause of action to initiate the proceedings.
Section 29-CC of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act provides as under :
'(3) If the officer referred to in Sub-section (2) finds on the inspection of the vehicle that the transporter is not carrying the documents referred to in Sub-section (1) or the documents being carried are not in order or the transporter is not carrying a copy of the declaration referred to in Sub-section (2), he may direct the transporter to take the vehicle along with the goods and the documents to the nearest check-post or the circle or the sub-circle office to be named by him and stop it and keep it stationary there till such time as may be required for action in accordance with the provisions of Section 29-A.'
4. The assumption of the respondents stood incinerated when on inspection no case in terms of Section 29-CC of the aforesaid Act was found to be made out.
5. The goods have already been released by order passed by this Court on September 23, 1992. The question to be decided in this case is whether any proceedings in terms of Section 29-CC of the aforesaid Act are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Once on inspection it was found that the truck had all the documents as are required under the law no occasion arose for initiation of proceedings for penalty. The counsel for the respondents thus failed to satisfy me as to how the aforesaid proceedings arc tenable in law.
7. No one should be lugged into futile litigation. This is one aspect. The other aspect is that the authority initiating any proceeding can do it within the limits of its jurisdiction. In the instant case there are no facts warranting initiation or continuance of such proceedings.
8. In the result I am satisfied that the notice, annexure D. cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly quashed. Consequently all proceedings relating to penalty are also quashed.
9. The petition thus stands allowed in terms indicated above, but without any order as to costs. In case the petitioner is held liable for action under any other provision of law, this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating proceedings under different provisions of the Act.