2013 (4) TMI 462 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of truck containing Desi Ghee and other milk products - penalty imposed - goods imported by road accompanied a challan and a blank declaration form - revisionist submitted that by mistake the declaration form was not filled-in or duly verified with no intention not to carry along with the goods imported, a declaration duly verified - Held that - There may be some substance that, by reason of mistake, inadvertence or error, the accompanying declaration form was not filled-in but it is impossible to state, with certainty, that only because of mistake, inadvertence or error, the accompanying declaration form was not filled-in. There was nothing in the declaration, which would show that the same stood appropriated to the goods in question, and that the said declaration cannot be used for any other goods. That being the situation, it is also possible that the revisionist was taking a chance of taking the goods without appropriating the goods to the declaration form for using the declaration form for the next trip. In the circumstances, not only the seizure was valid, but imposition of penalty too was valid.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in preferring revision, Validity of seizure and penalty imposition for failure to fill-in declaration form, Interpretation of statutory mandate regarding declaration form for imported goods, Evidence requirement for declaration form usage, Comparison with precedent judgment.

In this case, the High Court of Uttarakhand had to decide on the condonation of delay in preferring a revision related to the Assessment Year 2002-2003. The Tribunal's judgment was under revision, and there was a 23-day delay in filing the revision, which required an Application for condonation of delay. The Court considered the reasons for the delay and allowed the Application, proceeding to hear the case on merits.

The main issue revolved around the seizure and penalty imposition on goods imported into Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh due to a blank declaration form. The U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, mandated that imported goods must be accompanied by a verified declaration form. The Court interpreted that post the creation of Uttarakhand, the Act's provisions applied to the state, making the declaration form requirement applicable to imports into Uttarakhand. The revisionist argued that the form was not filled due to mistake, but the Court found no conclusive evidence to support this claim. The Court held that the seizure and penalty were justified as there was a possibility of the form being intentionally left blank for future use.

The Court also discussed the requirement of declaration forms for imported goods under Rule 83 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. The revisionist's argument that only two declaration forms were obtained, with one used for a different trip, lacked supporting evidence. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing the statutory mandate of accompanying imported goods with a duly verified declaration form.

Furthermore, the revisionist cited a precedent judgment from the Allahabad High Court, but the Court found that the cited observations did not contradict its findings. The Court highlighted that the requirement of a declaration form for imported goods was a statutory mandate, emphasizing the importance of compliance. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Revision Application, upholding the seizure and penalty imposition for the failure to fill-in the declaration form accompanying the imported goods.