TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated February 22, 2011 rejecting the representation under section 48(7) of the Act and that of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2011 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Once the seizure is held invalid, the issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in directing for release of the goods on deposit of cash security twice the amount of tax leviable in place of 40 per cent of the estimated value of the goods, as provided under the Act, fails into oblivion and, as such, need not be addressed. Revision of the Department does not survive. - Sales/Trade Tax Revisions Nos. 272, Sales/Trade Tax Revisions Nos. 273 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2011 - PANKAJ MITHAL J. Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by S. D. Singh for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods, however, was detained on February 2, 2011 at Kannauj whereupon, after service of show-cause notice and on consideration of reply, seizure order was passed on February 10, 2011. The representation under section 48(7) of the Act against the seizure order was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (SIB) Commercial Tax, Etawah on February 22, 2011 against which second appeal was preferred before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur. The appeal was partly allowed and upholding the seizure, the goods were directed to be released on furnishing cash security of twice the amount of tax on the estimated value of the goods seized. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the State of U. P. It provides that the vehicle carrying goods from outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State of U. P., while passing through the State of U. P. shall carry such documents as may be prescribed, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods are meant for sale within the State of U. P. Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Act also makes a similar provision and puts an obligation upon the driver or the person incharge of the vehicle carrying the goods to follow such procedure as may be determined from time to time and to carry such documents as may be prescribed by the Commissioner failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried are meant for sale within the State. The Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. It is not even the case that the goods were undervalued or that they were being loaded or unloaded in the State of U. P. which may have give a legitimate presumption of their being sold in U. P. It is also pertinent to note that the goods were detained prior to the expiry of the time of exit of the goods from U. P. as declared in the transit declaration form. In the case of Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2006] 143 STC 493 (All) ; [2003] 23 NTN 1009, which was a case under the U. P. Trade Tax Act having identical provisions pari materia with that of the U. P. Value Added Tax Act in respect of search and seizure of goods, this court clearly laid down that where there is no case that the goods were being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration form. The past conduct of the transporter or the driver in obtaining transit declaration form and the doubt expressed about the possibility of said vehicle being again used within a short span for transporting goods from Delhi to Patna is not the relevant criteria for inferring that the present goods are likely to be sold in U. P., inasmuch as the actual use of vehicle for transportation of the present consignment is not in dispute. Moreover, the authenticity of the past transaction has neither been verified nor is the subject-matter of the present case. Similarly, learned counsel for the Department is unable to explain as to how the making of bilty and then the invoice would cast a doubt upon the authenticity of the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id, the issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in directing for release of the goods on deposit of cash security twice the amount of tax leviable in place of 40 per cent of the estimated value of the goods, as provided under the Act, fails into oblivion and, as such, need not be addressed. In this view of the matter, the revision of the Department does not survive. Accordingly, revision No. 272 of 2011 is allowed. The impugned orders of seizure dated February 10, 2011, the order dated February 22, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Etawah, rejecting the representation under section 48(7) of the Act and that of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2011 passed in appeal No. 70 of 2011 are set aside and revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
