2002 (4) TMI 917 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the representation under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act after goods release.
2. Maintainability of further appeal after goods release.
3. Binding nature of Tribunal's findings on the maintainability of the appeal.

Issue 1: Validity of representation under section 13-A(6) after goods release:
The case involved the detention and subsequent release of goods carried by a dealer under suspicion of improper documentation. The dealer deposited security for release of goods after seizure. The dealer then submitted a representation under section 13-A(6) of the Act, seeking release without security. The court analyzed whether such a representation was maintainable after goods release. The court held that once goods are released upon furnishing security, the dealer cannot challenge the matter under the proviso to section 13-A(6) of the Act. The proviso can only be invoked when goods are under seizure and the dealer is required to provide security for release. If the dealer complies with the security requirement without filing a representation, there is no basis for further challenge under the proviso.

Issue 2: Maintainability of further appeal after goods release:
The revisionist contended that since the goods were already released, further appeal was not maintainable. Citing a previous judgment, the revisionist argued that once goods are released after depositing security, subsequent appeals are not tenable. The court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that if goods are released upon furnishing security, the need for further appeals is obviated. The court referred to a previous case where a second appeal was deemed not maintainable after goods release upon depositing security. Therefore, the court held that the revisionist's argument regarding the maintainability of further appeal post goods release was valid.

Issue 3: Binding nature of Tribunal's findings on appeal maintainability:
The court considered the Tribunal's finding on the maintainability of the appeal in light of previous judgments. The court noted that the Tribunal's decision on appeal maintainability was not binding, citing a case where a second appeal was held not maintainable despite the Tribunal's ruling. The court emphasized that the orders in seizure proceedings are not conclusive, and both parties have fresh opportunities to present their cases in penalty proceedings. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's order while highlighting the need to examine the propriety and validity of the seizure in penalty proceedings.

In conclusion, the court allowed the revisions, affirming the arguments regarding the invalidity of representation under section 13-A(6) post goods release, the non-maintainability of further appeals after goods release, and the independent nature of penalty proceedings despite the Tribunal's findings.