TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized, they were found to be en-route disclosed in the TDF, and time to exit State had not expired - the direction issued by the Tribunal to release the goods upon deposit of 10% amount of the estimated value in cash or bank guarantee cannot be said to be bad in law. Revision disposed off. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 72, 75 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. For the Applicant : Bipin Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER 1. The State as well as the assessee, both, are before this Court in their respective revisions, against an order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 10.2.2017, passed in Appeal No.6 of 2017, whereby the assessee's appeal has been allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities. It was found that 26 out of these 27GR/invoices mentioned Tin numbers, which were found to be non-existent. The authorities, therefore, were of a prima facie opinion that in fact the consignor and consignee were all fictitious persons, and goods were being transported from Ghaziabad in the State of U.P., with the object of evading payment of tax. The show cause notice has been replied by the assessee contending that the details of consignor and consignee, as have been provided to the transporter, have been furnished, and the transporter has no means to verify their genuineness, nor is it warranted in law. The assessing authority, in such circumstances, has allowed release of goods, which is in the nature of grocery items, inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in similar circumstances interfered with the order of Tribunal, and directed deposit of cash/bank guarantee to the extent of 40% of estimated value. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that judgment, relied upon, essentially follows a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 10 RT JS 335, which arose out of proceedings initiated under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Learned counsel with reference to Section 76(2)(d) and Explanation 12 submits that under the relevant enactment, there existed requirement of providing details of consignor and consignee by the transporter, and if it fails to provide such details, it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins that goods were being transported with a valid TDF, and at the time when goods were seized, it was en-route, as disclosed in TDF, and period for the vehicle to exit had not expired. 7. So far as requirement on part of transporter to possess details of consignor or consignee is concerned, no specific provision akin to the provisions existing in Rajasthan is shown to the court. However, this alone would not be determinative of the cause, inasmuch as where question arises as to whether the goods are being transported from one State to another through U.P., the authorities may be entitled to examine the claim of assessee with regard to genuineness of its plea in that regard. For the purposes of ascertaining as to whether goods have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
