9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arts. For some reason, the applicant decided to close down the said unit with effect from March 31, 2007. The information of the closure of the unit was given to the Trade Tax Department. Due to the closure of the unit, the applicant decided to shift the office goods from the State of U.P. to State of Uttaranchal, to its sister concern. For this purpose, the office equipment such as chairs, tables, almirahas, gas cylinder, electric fittings, etc., were being transported from State of U.P. to the sister concern known as Unimotive Auto Parts situate at Plot Nos. 20, 21 and 22, Siduel Site, Sitarganj (State of Uttaranchal). The goods were accompanied with challan No. 137, dated October 17, 2007 where it was mentioned that the goods are "not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly accounted for in the account books. Elaborating the argument he submits that on a plain reading of section 13A(4), the seizure is unjustified, for the reason that it does not talk about a "registered dealer". The Tribunal wrongly interpreted section 13A(4) and read the word "registered" before the word dealer in the said Act, submits the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned standing counsel on the other hand supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The details of the items which were being transported have been given in annexure 1 to the memo of revision. A bare perusal of annexure 1 would show that items such as chairs, tables, almirahas, gas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or penalty will be considered at the appropriate stage. This observation is indicative of the fact that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal was not confident that by transferring the goods in question the sale is being suppressed by the applicant. This being so, there was no justification for seizing the goods. Power of seizure has been given to check tax evasion and unless the authority concerned comes to such conclusion, no seizure can be made. There is also sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that under section 13A(4), only word "dealer" has been used and not "registered dealer". The word "dealer" has been defined in section 2(c) of the Act. The definition of "dealer" provides that it means any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for by the dealer in the account books. Whether the applicant is dealer or not is required to be find out first. There being no such finding, the order of seizure cannot be sustained. Viewed as above, I find sufficient force in the revision. There was absolutely no justification for the Department to seize the goods in question. The seizure order is therefore, illegal and contrary to law. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The seizure order dated October 19, 2007 and the orders dated November 23, 2007, confirmed by the Tribunal by the order dated May 1, 2008 are hereby set aside. The authorities concerned are directed to release the goods forthwith without any delay. The applicant is entitled to get Rs. 5,000 as cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
