1990 (5) TMI 221 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Seizure of goods under U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948; Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Sales Tax to appoint experts for inspection of seized articles.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by two petitioners, M/s. Kalyan Electronics and M/s. Kalyan Engineering Works, challenging the seizure of certain articles by respondents 4, 5, and 6 under section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The petitioners contended that the seized articles were alternators, diesel engines, and spare parts, not generating sets as claimed by the authorities. They argued that the seizure was erroneous as the goods corresponded to supply orders received from a dealer in Rajasthan and were accompanied by relevant invoices. The authorities had allowed the release of goods on depositing security amounts, later modified to a bank guarantee. The petitioners sought appointment of experts by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to determine the nature of the seized articles, which was declined citing lack of jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel, held that there was no provision empowering the Commissioner to appoint experts as requested by the petitioners. The Court found no fault in the Commissioner's decision and declined to interfere in the matter. The petitioners' plea for the Court to appoint experts was dismissed as the Court deemed it unnecessary to intervene in the absence of any challenge to the seizure or detention of goods.

The Court emphasized that the petition did not challenge any specific action of the authorities as ultra vires, nor did it contest the seizure or detention of goods. The sole relief sought was the appointment of experts for inspection to support the petitioners' claims. The Court noted that the petition appeared to be an attempt to preempt potential penalty proceedings and secure the release of goods based on expert evidence. However, the Court held that there were insufficient grounds to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favor of the petitioners solely for obtaining expert evidence. The Court advised the petitioners to raise their arguments during penalty or assessment proceedings if necessary, rather than seeking a writ for expert inspection. Consequently, the Court found the petition meritless and summarily rejected it, directing the issuance of a certified copy of the order to the petitioners.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the limitations of the Commissioner of Sales Tax's jurisdiction to appoint experts for inspecting seized articles under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. It highlights the Court's reluctance to interfere in the absence of legal grounds challenging specific actions or decisions of the authorities. The judgment clarifies that seeking expert evidence through a writ petition may not be justified if alternative avenues are available during penalty or assessment proceedings.