TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. - 776 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,JJ. For the Applicant : Aloke Kumar For the Respondent : C. S. C. ORDER Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the dealer revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent department. The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order of seizure but permitting release of seized goods on furnishing security of 40% of the estimated value of the goods under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Act) and of similar amount under the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax Act) which has been reduced to 15% by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while upholding the seizure vide order dated 26.9.2013. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order of seizure has been passed basically for the reason that the goods were not accompanied by the Transit Declaration Form. The Transit Declaration Form was produced by the person in charge of the vehicle in pursuance of the show cause notice and therefore, for the technical default that it was not available at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as the Rules) was not accompanying the goods. It gives rise to a presumption that the goods were likely to be unloaded within the State of U.P. for sale with the intention to avoid tax. In short, the order of seizure was passed for the sole reason that the Transit Declaration Form was not there when the goods were detained. The order of tribunal records that the goods were detained on 13.9.2013. The Transit Declaration Form was not produced at the time of detention. It was downloaded on 18.9.2013 and was produced on 19.9.2013 with the reply to the show cause notice. The goods have been seized as they were not accompanied by the Transit Declaration Form. It further records that there was no discrepancy whatsoever in any other document accompanying the goods. The consignor and consignee are bonafide dealers. There was no unloading of goods within the State of U.P. The order of the tribunal also reflects that the seizure was only on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the Transit Declaration Form. In the above factual background the question which arises for examination is whether the goods in transit are liable to be seized for want of Transit Declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above provisions specifically provides for the seizure of goods for want of Transit Declaration Form. Section 52 of the VAT Act provides for the transit of the goods through the State of U.P. It reads as under:- "52. Provision for goods passing through the State-When a vehicle coming from any place outside the state and bound for any other place outside the State and carrying goods referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 50, passes through the state, the driver or other person in charge of such vehicle shall carry such documents as may be prescribed failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby are meant for sale within the state by the owner or person in charge of the vehicle." According to the above provision the driver or the person in charge of the vehicle carrying the goods through the State of U.P. is required to carry such documents as may be prescribed failing which a presumption can be drawn that the goods are likely to be sold within the State of U.P. Rule 58 of the Rules repeats the above provision as contained in Section 52 of the VAT Act and lays down that the goods coming from outside the State of U.P. and going to a distant place ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case the notice as well as the seizure order clearly indicates that the goods were under transit from the State of Orissa to the State of Punjab. The consignor and consignee of the goods are bonafide dealers. The goods were not being unloaded in the State of U.P. It means that the same were meant for transportation from outside U.P. to a place outside U.P. The seizure of goods was only for the reason that they were not accompanied by the Transit Declaration Form meaning that the department itself treated the goods to be under transit through the State of U.P. for which Form 38/39 was not necessary. Accordingly, the goods were not supposed to be accompanied by Form 38 which is required only for importing the goods inside U.P. The seizure is not for the reason that Form 38/39 was not there. In the era of globalization, geographical and trade barriers have become things of the past. It is for this reason that the department itself had abolished the check posts. The checking of vehicles or goods during transportation may be necessary for promoting the interest of the revenue but practical experience is otherwise and it is common knowledge that such exercise causes hindrance no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
