Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 337 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTSeizure orders - Transit Declaration Form of goods by mistake have been described as cotton fabric instead of cotton coated fabric and the Tin number of the Kolkata dealer differs slightly - transporter asked for release of goods as show cause notice has been issued to driver of the vehicle - revision application - Held that:- In reality the notice and the order is required to be served upon the dealer but as on spot the dealer is not to be found, it is permitted to be served upon the person incharge of the vehicle/goods with the intention that he will inform the dealer who would appear and contest the proceedings or allow them to be persued by the person incharge. Thus, by mere service of the show cause notice upon the person incharge of the vehicle or the order of the seizure upon him would again not make him the "person aggrieved" to ask for the release of the goods or for waving the security demanded unless the transporter produces an authority of the owner of the goods to get them released on his behalf. The transporter who is not the owner of the seized goods has no right or interest in them therefore, refusal of the authorities to release the said goods without security does not infringe any legal right of the transporter so as to give him a right to challenge the order. The transporter is not a person who has wrongly been deprived of any entitlement of legal right or who has suffered adversely in legal sense on the seizure of goods or on refusal to release them without security. The transporter is not a person aggrieved who can raise any grievance either against the seizure of the goods or against refusal to release the same without security. He at best can only complaint about the confinement of his vehicle in which the seized goods were loaded and were being carried. The vehicle is not the subject matter of seizure and the transporter can always ask the authorities to allow the vehicle to go without insisting for the release of the goods. No case law submitted by transporter is acceptable as does not help him to substantiate his plea that he is a person aggrieved entitle to release of the goods. It is important to note that the transporter has not specifically challenged the order of the tribunal dated 7.2.2013. A challenge to the order of seizure dated 4.12.2012 directly in revision is not acceptable. The relief to release the seized goods without any security does not involve any question of law as the condition for release of the goods is dependent upon the discretion of the authority concerned. Therefore, no relief in this regard is permissible in exercise of revisional power under Section 58 of the Act - revision as such fails and is dismissed.
|