TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 76,20,000. In respect of the said consignment, invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 was issued. It is stated that on June 9, 2005 the applicant booked 117 bags and 30 drums of agrochemicals from Kamrup, Assam to Bhatinda, Punjab. The total weight of the consignment was 6,300 kg., valuing ₹ 76,20,000. However, the transporter, M/s. Transolutions Pvt. Ltd., on the directions of the applicant, dispatched only 99 drums weighing 5,100 kg., agro-chemicals on June 9, 2005 in truck No. HR-55A/4687 by G.R. No. 6401589. The value of the consignment was ₹ 59,87,142.85. As per G.R., goods were to be transported from District Kamrup, Assam to Bhatinda, Punjab. At the entry check-post at Tamkuhiraj on the application of the driver transit pass was issued. In the transit pass, G.R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 for 99 drums, the name of consignor, consignee, 99 drums of agro-chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., valued at ₹ 59,87,142.85 were mentioned. When the vehicle reached T.P. Nagar Check-post, Ghaziabad on June 15, 2005, at the check-post, driver of the vehicle submitted the transit pass for necessary endorsement. It appears that from the possession of the driver, invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note No. 34. He submitted that at the entry check-post, the Check-post Officer could only verify the goods with reference to the goods mentioned in the transit pass and the G.R. mentioned in the transit pass and not with reference to any other documents. He submitted that the seizure was patently illegal and as a result of harassment. He also claimed the loss suffered by the applicant. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 were found from the possession of the driver and no other document relating to the impugned 99 drums were found, it was rightly inferred by the Check-post Officer that invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005 related to the impugned goods and since the impugned goods did not tally with the goods mentioned in the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, it has been rightly inferred that the goods relating to invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 were sold inside the State of U.P. and other goods have been loaded in the vehicle. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Record of the case has also been produced dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their entry into the State, transported outside the State by any other vehicle or conveyance, the onus of proving that goods have actually moved out of the State shall be on the owner or person in-charge of the vehicle. Explanation.-In a case where a vehicle owned by a person is hired for transportation of goods by some other person, the hirer of the vehicle shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle. Rule 87. The transit of goods by road through the State.-(1) The driver or person in-charge of a vehicle coming from any place outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State shall present the trip sheet in triplicate to the officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier, if any, established near the point of entry into the State hereinafter referred to as entry check-post. (2) The officer-in-charge of the entry check-post shall after examining the document and after making such enquiries as he deems necessary specify on all the copies of the trip sheet the check-post or the barrier (hereinafter referred to as the exit check-post) of the State to be crossed by the vehicle or vessel and the time and date up to which it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a law with respect to any subject it has all the ancillary and incidental powers to make the law effective. para 9. The provisions of section 28B of the Act and rule 87 of the Rules which are impugned in these cases as mentioned above are just machinery provisions. They impose no charge on the subject. They are enacted to ensure that a person who has brought the goods inside the State and who has made a declaration that the goods are brought into the State for the purpose of carrying them outside the State should actually take them outside the State. If he hands over the transit pass while taking the goods outside the State then there would be no liability at all. It is only when he does not deliver the transit pass at the exit check-post as undertaken by him, the question of raising a presumption against him would arise. We shall revert to the question of presumption again at a later stage, but it is sufficient to say here that these provisions are enacted to make the law workable and to prevent evasion. Such provisions fall within the ambit and scope of the power to levy the tax itself. para 14. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
