pointed out that the delivery chellans, that were to be used in connection with the transportation were not found used and what was used was actually certain challans which were not serially machine numbered or prepared in triplicate in the same manner as a delivery note in Form-15. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not used a delivery challan, the details of which were intimated to the assessing authority in advance. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is a dealer paying tax on compounded basis and the detection of the aforesaid quantity, which was being taken for hallmarking purposes would not by itself have any bearing on the tax liability on the petitioner for the assessment year in question. It is also stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer. Taking note of the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, but finding that there was a violation of the procedure with regard to transportation of the item in question, I find that the detention on the part of the respondents cannot be said to be unjustified. I therefore, direct the 1st respondent to release the goods covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on the petitioner paying 25% of the security deposit amount demanded in Ext.P3 and furnishing a simple bond without sureties for the balance security deposit amount demanded in the notice, before the 1st respondent.
