2014 (9) TMI 917 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of goods - breach of Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Demand of security - rebuttal of the presumption under Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Held that - As per Rule 43-B of the Rubber Rules, declaration form in the prescribed form issued by Board in Form No.N-2 is necessary and without which no person shall transport rubber. The consignee M/s Golden Rubber Chemicals hold a license under rule 39A. Thus, it was fully established by the applicant/consignee that the goods were being transported from Tripura to Haryana. The presumption under Section 52 of the Act, was successfully rebutted by the applicant/consignee by producing relevant documents at the time of inspection of the goods which was followed by the TDF. - applicants have successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 52 of the Act and as such there was no occasion for the respondent authorities either to seize the goods or to ask for security for release of the goods. The Tribunal committed a manifest error of law and fact to direct the applicant to furnish security of 20% of the value of goods either in cash or bank guarantee for release of the goods. - impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of goods seizure under Section 52 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and demand for security deposit.
2. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 52 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis:
1. The revision was admitted to address the legality of upholding the seizure of goods under Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and the demand for a 20% security deposit for release. The applicant's counsel argued that despite the driver's error in not downloading the transit declaration form while entering U.P., the goods were accompanied by relevant documents like invoices and a declaration form under the Rubber Rules 1955. The applicant contended that the presumption was rebutted, and no security should have been demanded. Citing precedents, the applicant emphasized the authenticity of the documents and transactions, further submitting the missing TDF was later submitted as per court order.

2. The respondent's counsel defended the seizure based on the initial absence of the TDF, asserting that the subsequent submission did not invalidate the seizure. The court acknowledged the regulated movement of raw rubber under the Rubber Rules 1955 and detailed the various accompanying documents found with the goods, highlighting the consignee's licensing and compliance with transportation requirements. It was established that the presumption under Section 52 was effectively rebutted by the applicant through the presented documents and subsequent submission of the TDF, proving the lawful transportation of goods from Tripura to Haryana.

3. The court concluded that the applicant successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 52, rendering the seizure and demand for security unjustified. Criticizing the Tribunal's decision, the court ruled in favor of the applicant, setting aside the order and directing the immediate release of the goods without any security deposit. The judgment clarified that it was specific to the case at hand and not to be considered as a legal precedent, emphasizing the unique circumstances that led to the decision.