9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Himalaya Enterprises Bhiwani, State of Hariyana. The said good were being transported from New Delhi to Sasaram in the State of Bihar when it got detained by the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department in the District of Etawah on 1st December, 2011. A show cause notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle and, thereafter, a seizure order dated 2nd December, 2011 was passed seizing the goods and directing to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,20,515/- towards security as a pre-condition for release of the goods. Thereafter an application under Section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was filed before the Joint Commissioner wherein the petitioner appeared personally. This application was rejected on 7th December, 2011 pursuant to which, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Commissioner Commercial Tax to pay the cost of the 110 bags of plastic granules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two folds, namely, that when the petitioner appeared in person the goods could not have been released to the driver and that the goods if, any, should have been released only to the petitioner. Since the same was not done, the respondents are liable to release the goods in favour of the petitioner or pay the value of the goods. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no provision under the Act to release part of the goods. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, we find it strange that the petitioner does not dispute the deposit of Rs. One lac mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities immediately thereafter, but did not object to the fact that notice or custody of the goods should not be given to the driver. On the other hand there is proof that the driver deposited a sum of Rs. One lac towards security on 22nd December, 2011 which fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the goods released by the Tax Department in favour of the driver was in consonance with the provision of Section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax as in our opinion, the driver was the person incharge at that moment of time. This view of ours is also fortified by a decision of this Court in M/s Gopal Carriers Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary and four others in Writ Tax No. 797 of 2013 deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
