1993 (11) TMI 235 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the release of seized goods under Section 13 - A (4) of U. P. Sales Tax Act

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the challenge to the release of goods seized under Section 13 - A (4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The case involved a truck carrying bicycles and bicycle parts from Ludhiana to Imphal, which was seized by Sales Tax authorities in Uttar Pradesh. The authorities alleged that the truck had entered the state without proper documentation, leading to a penalty under Section 15 - A (1) (o). The owners of the goods and the transporter filed an objection under Section 13 - A (6) before the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed as infructuous due to a penalty order already being passed. Subsequently, the owners and the transporter appealed to the Sales Tax Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, directing the release of goods without any security, deeming the seizure unjustified.

The transporter and the owner of the goods provided an explanation for the delay in reaching the exit check post, citing an accident in Basti that caused the truck to be repaired. The Tribunal found their explanation to be correct based on the evidence presented, noting the lack of investigation by the department into the facts alleged by the objectors. The Tribunal's factual finding regarding the truck being on its way to its destination with a valid exit pass was deemed well-founded and not subject to revision.

The Court rejected the argument put forth by the Standing Counsel that the exit pass was wrongly discharged, leading to a presumption that the goods could be sold in Uttar Pradesh. The Court found this assumption to be based on mere conjectures and lacking substantial evidence. Additionally, the Court clarified that the penalty under Section 15 - A (1) (o) did not render the proceeding under Section 13 - A (6) infructuous, as the authorities retained the power to release the goods despite the penalty order.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the contention that the goods were seized from the possession of the driver but the penalty was levied on the owner of the truck, questioning the release of goods to the transporter. The Court clarified that the transporter could be considered a person in charge of the goods under Section 13 - A, as the term was not defined in the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to release the goods to the transporter was upheld.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the Tribunal's decision to release the goods without delay in accordance with the law.