Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 643 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether seizure of goods in purported exercise of power u/s 50 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act,2008 was justified Seizure of Chasis of goods carrier Exercise of Power u/s 50 Held that:- The record shows that assessee is not a mere Driver but the owner of chassis in question as the invoice was issued by M/s Ganga Nagar Motors, Kota (Rajasthan) in the name of revisionist - The chassis is shown hypotheticated to HDFC Bank - Regarding intention of revisionist, it is too early at this stage to form any conclusive opinion but the fact remains that revisionist did not inform checking authority as to whom he has to met for getting the body, built on the chassis - The revisionist has given his address at Kota whereat the chassis was purchased - However, this by itself may not be sufficient to give an impression and no person of ordinary prudence having reasonable acquaintance in the matter like present can form an opinion that the Driver or owner has brought chassis in State of U.P. for sale, by evading payment of tax - A chassis registered on temporary basis and hypotheticated to Bank, cannot be sold without several formalities in which various other agencies like Transport Department, HDFC Bank etc. are involved. Whether quantum and form of security demanded for release of the goods was excessive and arbitrary Pre-deposit for release of chasis of goods carrier Held that:- It is not the case of revisionist that a person, purchasing a single vehicle or chassis would answer the definition of a "dealer" or such a person, if enters into State of U.P,. has to obtain requisite forms, necessary for import of goods by dealers - It appears that respondents-authorities in this case have adopted an extra hyper technical view based on total conjectures and surmises - This is nothing but a sheer endeavor on their part to harass an otherwise bona fide purchaser of goods outside the State of U.P. - It is not found as to how seizure is consistent with the requirement of statute - In fact seizure from its very inception is patently illegal and amounts to gross abuse of process of law - In the result, revision is allowed - The impugned orders are hereby quashed. The respondents-authorities are directed to release chassis in question forthwith Decided in favour of assessee.
|