2005 (9) TMI 603 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of seizure of goods at the entry check-post.
2. Validity of the bill and builty issued by the seller.
3. Compliance with Section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
4. The Tribunal's direction to issue a transit pass.
5. Imposition of exemplary costs on the Check-post Officer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Seizure of Goods at the Entry Check-post:
The primary issue was whether the Check-post Officer had the authority to seize goods at the entry check-post. According to Section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the power to seize goods is only available at the exit check-post when it is found that the transporter is trying to import different goods. The judgment emphasized that there is no power to seize goods at the entry check-post. The officer is required to verify the goods and issue a transit pass, which is to be surrendered at the exit check-post.

2. Validity of the Bill and Builty Issued by the Seller:
The Check-post Officer alleged that the bill number was handwritten and that the bill and builty numbers appeared to be written in one handwriting, casting doubt on their authenticity. However, the Tribunal found this allegation baseless, noting that no handwriting expert's opinion was sought. The judgment pointed out that the seller and purchaser were registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act and respective State Acts, making the officer's objections irrelevant.

3. Compliance with Section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948:
Section 28B is a machinery provision designed to prevent tax evasion by ensuring that goods passing through the State of U.P. are not sold within the state. The judgment reiterated that Section 28B is not a charging section but a mechanism to check tax evasion. The presumption of sale within the state can only be drawn if the transit pass is not surrendered at the exit check-post. In this case, the transit pass was sought for 225 bags of scrap, and no discrepancy in the number of bags was found upon physical verification.

4. The Tribunal's Direction to Issue a Transit Pass:
The Tribunal directed the Check-post Officer to issue the transit pass, which was contested by the Standing Counsel. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the seizure was arbitrary and illegal. The Check-post Officer's refusal to issue the transit pass was deemed unjustified since the goods were correctly declared and documented.

5. Imposition of Exemplary Costs on the Check-post Officer:
The judgment concluded that the Check-post Officer's actions were arbitrary and caused harassment and pecuniary loss to the opposite party. As a result, the officer was held liable for exemplary costs assessed at Rs. 10,000. The judgment also noted that the opposite party could claim damages for the loss suffered due to the illegal seizure.

Conclusion:
The revision was dismissed, and the Check-post Officer was directed to issue the transit pass forthwith as per the Tribunal's direction. The officer was also ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000 to the opposite party within fifteen days. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 28B and ensuring that goods are not arbitrarily seized at entry check-posts.