2010 (8) TMI 846 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of goods- documents showing transit of goods were manipulated - Held that - As all the necessary documents accompanying the goods were duly produced and no discrepancy was found therein coupled with the fact that the two affidavits remained uncontroverted with no positive or constructive evidence to prove that the goods were actually loaded from Jhansi or that the consignor was fake and the goods were not traceable to him therfore no ground for seizure of the goods existed and the Tribunal as such committed no error of law or jurisdiction in passing the impugned order setting aside the order of seizure dated June 15 2010 passed under section 48 of the Act and the order dated June 25 2010 affirming the same passed by the first appellate authority. Revision dismissed.

Issues:
1. Revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal allowing the appeal of the opposite party against the order of seizure and its affirmation by the first appellate authority.
2. Justification of passing the order of seizure by the Department.
3. Compliance with the provisions of Section 48 and Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
4. Consideration of documents and evidence presented by the opposite party.
5. Allegations regarding the origin of the goods and the legitimacy of the consignor.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow filed a revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi, which allowed the appeal of the opposite party against the seizure order and its affirmation by the first appellate authority. The main contention was the justification for the seizure of goods by the Department.

2. The Department's primary ground for seizing the goods was the alleged discrepancy in the origin of the goods and the legitimacy of the consignor. Despite the opposite party providing all required documents, the Department contended that the goods were loaded from a different location than stated, leading to the seizure order under Section 48 of the Act.

3. Section 48 of the Act empowers the seizure of goods if they are not properly documented or traceable to a bona fide dealer. Section 52 specifically addresses the transit of goods through the State of U.P., requiring proper authorization and documentation. The Act aims to prevent the sale of goods in U.P. that are meant for destinations outside the state.

4. The Court examined the documents presented by the opposite party, including a valid certificate of transit, consignor and consignee details, and other necessary forms. No discrepancies were found in the documents accompanying the goods, and all requirements were met as per the Act and relevant rules.

5. The Court considered the evidence provided by the opposite party, such as affidavits from the driver and the consignor, stating that the goods were loaded from the specified location in Madhya Pradesh. The lack of concrete evidence or reports from the Department to prove otherwise led the Court to conclude that no grounds for seizure existed. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the seizure order was upheld, as no errors of law or jurisdiction were found.

In conclusion, the revision was dismissed as the Court found no merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and evidence in cases involving the seizure of goods under tax laws.

← Previous Next →