2017 (5) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of order of seizure and conditional release - goods declared was parchun whereas actual product transported was P.V.C. Granules - the goods were being transported through the State of U.P. - Held that - declaration made by the transporter in TDF-1 was admittedly incorrect. In the bill and bilty etc. the product was shown as PVC granules but its value has been shown at Rs. 16.50 per Kg. No basis could be disclosed before the Tribunal to support such valuation - According to the department the goods were to be unloaded in the State of U.P. and that is why false description was given in TDF etc - the conditional deposit of security for release of goods is upheld - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of goods for release, Conditional deposit of security, Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

Valuation of Goods for Release:
The case involves a transporter challenging an order by the Tribunal for the release of goods upon deposit of cash security or bank guarantee. The vehicle was detained while transporting 'parchun' from Delhi to Gwalior, but it was found to be P.V.C. Granules. The initial deposit required was 40% of the assessed value of Rs. 22,00,000, which was later reduced to 15% of Rs. 8,80,000 on appeal. The transporter argued that the goods were wrongly valued at Rs. 50 per Kg by the Tribunal, while they claimed the correct value was Rs. 40 per Kg. The Court noted discrepancies in the declaration made by the transporter and the valuation provided, but found the Tribunal's determination of Rs. 50 per Kg not wholly baseless. The department alleged that the false description was to avoid unloading in the State of U.P. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision adequately protected the transporter's interests, and no legal errors were found to justify interference.

Conditional Deposit of Security:
The transporter contended that the order of seizure and conditional release of goods were unlawful as there was no dispute that the goods were being transported through the State of U.P. However, the Court found that despite the incorrect declaration in the TDF-1 form, other documents referred to the product as plastic granules. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the deposit amount to 15% was considered reasonable given the circumstances and evidence presented. The Court held that the challenge to the conditional deposit of security lacked legal merit or any manifest error to warrant intervention.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The judgment did not specifically address the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but focused on evaluating the correctness of the valuation of goods and the legality of the conditional deposit for release. The Court's analysis centered on whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and adequately protected the transporter's rights, rather than on any jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal's authority to assess the value of goods and impose deposit conditions was implicitly upheld through the Court's validation of the Tribunal's decision in this case.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order regarding the valuation of goods and the conditional deposit of security for release, dismissing the transporter's revision as lacking legal grounds for interference. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate valuation and proper documentation in transportation cases, ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.