TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of the initial seizure proceedings. Further, the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that the sale would stand completed only upon the payment for the goods and that the payment of price would be determinative of the issue would also, in the opinion of this Court, appear to be an issue which may not be free from debate. This Court however refrains from commenting further on this aspect. The caveat which stands entered above is primarily on account of the fact that in the opinion of this Court there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have ruled upon this aspect of the matter at all, the proceedings themselves being confined to the validity of seizure. This Court therefore without commenting any further on this aspect refrains from returning or entering any finding which may prejudice the rights and contentions of either of the parties - seizure quashed - revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 370, 371, 372 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2016 - Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J. For the Applicant : Parv Agarwal, Bharat Ji Agrawal, Shubham Agrawal For the Opposite Party :- C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the 2008 Act. The more fundamental issue which the revisionist raised was with regard to the issue of whether it could be said to be engaged in business within the State of U.P so as to be covered within the ambit of the 2008 Act. As is evident from the order of the Tribunal, the various contentions, which the revisionist advanced and which are reiterated before this Court, have been answered against it. The Tribunal, while exercising powers under Section 48 of the Act, has proceeded to return and record the following findings:- A. The revisionist is liable to be treated as a dealer under the provisions of the 2008 Act. B. The transaction as effected on the e-commerce web portal and in respect of which moneys are received within the State are not liable to be treated as inter-State sales. C. The revisionist in the course of carrying on its operation within the State does carry on business as defined under the 2008 Act. Sri Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, while assailing the aforesaid findings has drawn the specific attention of the Court to the fact that from the inception of the proceedings taken against it (and which stands reflected even in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls in question presently, were not adversely commented upon and that it was only certain prior transactions which fell for adverse scrutiny and comment and the same has been made a basis for the present seizure. It is his submission that such transactions could not have justified the seizure of the goods in question unless and until the authorities came to a conclusion that the goods which were seized fell within the mischief of Section 48. Shri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that since the revisionist does not dispute the fact that under the Agreement he is obliged to collect monies/payment of price from the consumer, as such he is liable to be treated as a dealer . He further submits that even otherwise and in the alternative this Court would be justified in holding that the revisionist fell within the ambit of clause (ix) of Section 2 (h) being a courier service provider who had failed to disclose the name and complete addresses of its consignees. Shri Pandey then submits that the Tribunal has committed no illegality in proceeding to hold that the sale was completed upon the receipt of price from the consumer within the State of U.P. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry itself was expanded by the Tribunal, it appears that the pointed issues which actually fell for or should have fallen for determination and were germane to the exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act have been lost sight of. More fundamentally the objection which stands raised and which becomes evident from the record is that the Tribunal has completely failed to record any finding with respect to the seized goods having not been duly accounted for in the books of accounts or having not been truly or faithfully recorded in the books maintained by the dealer. The Tribunal in this connection has sought to place reliance upon various previous transactions which according to it were of doubtful character. Doubts with respect to the business practices adopted by the revisionist arose before the Tribunal on account of certain orders placed by persons who were allegedly found to be nonexistent or where mobile numbers were shared by more than one individual. This led the Tribunal to view and paint the transactions and goods which formed the subject matter of the instant seizure with the same brush. It is not disputed before this Court by the learned standing counsel that the var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
