2010 (9) TMI 998 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of goods denied - Held that - The liability to pay the amount is of respondent No. 4 but we are informed that the check-posts have been abolished. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P., Lucknow (respondent No. 2) is the overall incharge of the Trade Tax Department. He should ensure that the payment of aforesaid amount be made to the petitioner at an early date, preferably within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. It would be open to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to recover the goods or the value of the goods from respondent No. 5 along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of seizure of the goods till the entire payment is made.

Issues:
1. Seizure and non-release of goods by Trade Tax Department.
2. Imposition and setting aside of penalty.
3. Failure to release seized goods despite multiple applications.
4. Legal obligation of Trade Tax Department to release goods or pay their value.
5. Award of interest to the petitioner.
6. Liability of Trade Tax Department and direction for payment.

Analysis:

1. Seizure and non-release of goods by Trade Tax Department:
The petitioner claimed to be the purchaser and importer of goods seized by the Trade Tax Department. The goods were seized at a check-post and were directed to be released upon furnishing security. Despite the passage of time, the goods were not released to the petitioner, and the responsibility for the release was on the Trade Tax Department.

2. Imposition and setting aside of penalty:
Penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in relation to the seized goods. Initially, an ex parte penalty was imposed, which was later set aside upon appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) I, Trade Tax, Kanpur. The penalty was ultimately set aside on March 23, 2001.

3. Failure to release seized goods despite multiple applications:
The petitioner made several applications for the release of the seized goods over the years, starting from 2002. Despite these applications, the goods were not released to the petitioner, leading to the filing of a writ petition seeking relief.

4. Legal obligation of Trade Tax Department to release goods or pay their value:
The Court held that there were no outstanding dues against the goods or the petitioner, placing the legal obligation on the Trade Tax Department to either release the goods or compensate the petitioner by paying the value of the goods along with interest.

5. Award of interest to the petitioner:
In light of the circumstances and the delay in releasing the goods, the Court deemed it appropriate to award interest to the petitioner at the rate of six per cent from the date of seizure of the goods until the entire payment is made to him.

6. Liability of Trade Tax Department and direction for payment:
The Court directed the Trade Tax Department to pay the value of the goods along with interest to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. Additionally, it was specified that the responsibility for recovering the goods or their value from another party rested with the Trade Tax Department.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of seizure, penalty imposition, non-release of goods, legal obligations, interest award, and payment direction, providing relief to the petitioner and clarifying the responsibilities of the Trade Tax Department in the matter.

← Previous Next →