Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 824 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTransit Declaration form Possession before entry Seizure for non-compliance UP VAT - Revision was sought for consideration, whether proceedings of seizure and direction for furnishing security was within jurisdiction of respondent- authority since order was passed only on ground that during mobile search, document namely transit declaration form was not found in possession of transporter It was alleged that transporter was obliged to download form and communicate respondent-authority at time when he enters territory of State of Uttar Pradesh Held that - Said issue was settled finally in case of M/s Prakash Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow 2013 (12) TMI 921 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT It was opined that Act does not specifically provide for seizure of goods for not carrying Transit Declaration Form Impugned order set aside Answered in favour of revisionist.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the respondent authority in seizure and direction for furnishing security based on the absence of a transit declaration form during a mobile search. Analysis: The judgment of the High Court pertains to a revision against an order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The key issue under consideration is whether the proceedings of seizure and direction for furnishing security by the respondent authority were within their jurisdiction. The order was based on the absence of a "transit declaration form" during a mobile search conducted on a transporter entering the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court referred to a previous judgment in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.776 of 2013, where it was held that the seizure of goods for not carrying the Transit Declaration Form was without jurisdiction as the Act did not specifically provide for such action. The Court emphasized that the order of seizure in the present case lacked legal basis as well. The learned counsel for both parties acknowledged that the previous judgment had settled the issue conclusively and was applicable to the current case. The Court, in line with the precedent set in the earlier judgment, resolved the questions of law in favor of the revisionist. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the impugned order dated 22.02.2014 was set aside. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the absence of a transit declaration form did not empower the respondent authority to seize goods or issue directions for furnishing security, as it was beyond their jurisdiction as per the relevant legal provisions.
|