2008 (2) TMI 429 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the goods loaded in the vehicles were those very goods which were available in the vehicle at the time of entry of the vehicle at the Check Post? Held that - The High Court does not appear to have appreciated that in the goods Receipt no. 6401589 dated 9-6-2005 in the Column of Private Mark the Entry is 034 and in the Column of Value the entry is Rs. 76, 20, 000/-. The figures 034 and Rs. 76, 20, 000/- are the Delivery Note No. 34 and the value of the goods is Rs. 76, 20, 000/- as mentioned in the Delivery Note. Above being the factual position the High Court ought not to have interfered with the orders of the departmental authorities and the Tribunal that too on the question of appreciation of the factual aspects. The High Court has not analyzed as to how the conclusions of the Tribunal as noted above suffer from any infirmity. If fact finding authority comes to certain conclusions honestly and bona fide the mere fact that Court may have a different perspective of that question cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding even though another view may be possible. Considering the limited jurisdiction exercisable under Section 11 of the Act such a course is not available. The High Court s order which is clearly indefensible is set aside. Appeal allowed of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order dated 10-10-2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Trade Tax Revision No. 694 of 2006.

Analysis:
1. The factual background involves the issuance of a Transit Pass for goods carried in a truck, subsequent physical verification revealing different goods from those covered by the pass, and a show cause notice issued for tax implications under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. The respondent filed an application for release of seized goods without security, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to a challenge before the Tribunal, which upheld the seizure order and security demand.
3. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough examination of documents and physical verification to ascertain the goods loaded in the vehicle at the entry Check Post, as per the Trip Sheet, were the same as those being transported outside the State of U.P.
4. Despite 99 drums of agro chemicals being found in the vehicle, discrepancies were noted in comparison with the original goods receipt, invoice, and delivery note, indicating a mismatch in goods loaded.
5. The High Court allowed the revision challenging the Tribunal's findings, prompting the appellant to argue that interference in proceedings under the Act should be limited to questions of law, not factual determinations.
6. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the departmental authorities and the Tribunal's orders on factual aspects, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act to only address legal issues.
7. The Court cited precedent to highlight that differing perspectives on factual findings do not warrant interference if the fact-finding authority's conclusions are honest and bona fide, especially when the jurisdiction is restricted to legal matters.
8. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs, emphasizing the importance of respecting the boundaries of legal jurisdiction in such matters.