2013 (5) TMI 31 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure orders - goods not accompanied by proper documents/invoices - assessee contested that he produced desired documents - Held that - The mandate to consider the documents produced in response to the show cause notice is only with regard to existing genuine and bona fide documents which for one reason or the other could not be produced when the goods were detained but this mandate would not apply to documents which were not in existence at the relevant time and were procured or manufactured subsequently. Thus the transit declaration form which was not in existence when the goods were detained cannot be regarded as a bona fide one. In its absence the goods were rightly detained. No illegality or error of law in the order of seizure. Estimation of market value of goods - Seizing authority assessed the estimated market value to be around Rs.72 lacs on the basis of the value appearing in the news paper but the Tribunal refused reduced it to Rs.25 lacs - Held that - Tribunal in reducing the value to Rs.25 lacs has not assigned any reason and no material has been referred to for so assessing the market value. There is no dispute that the assessee before the passing of the seizure order has produced three invoices relating to the goods. The authorities could have verified and assessed the value of the goods on the basis of the said invoices but the said exercise was not undertaken. Standing Counsel is unable to justify the estimation of Rs.72 lacs or 25 lacs as the value of the goods.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the estimation of the market value of the seized goods at Rs.25 lacs is not acceptable and the same is prima facie taken to be Rs.9 lacs as per the invoices relating to the goods produced at the time of seizure.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the seizure order and value assessment of seized goods.
2. Reduction of estimated value of seized goods by the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Legality of the seizure order and value assessment of seized goods:
The revisions were against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal-II, Kanpur, regarding the seizure of goods during transit from Delhi to Nepal. The dealer assessee challenged the seizure order as illegal and excessive, while the revenue filed a revision stating that the Tribunal erred in reducing the estimated value of the seized goods. The goods were detained between Kanpur and Lucknow, and a show cause notice was issued on 15.3.2013, leading to the seizure order on 25.3.2013. The Tribunal upheld the seizure but directed the release of goods upon furnishing security.

The order of seizure was based on the lack of proper documents, discrepancies in goods, and absence of a transit declaration form. The driver's statement, indicating the goods were not meant for Nepal, was also a factor. The counsel for the assessee argued against the driver's statement, presented three invoices, and produced the transit declaration form during the hearing. However, the absence of the transit declaration form was considered a sufficient ground for seizure.

The court referred to the requirement of considering materials produced in response to show cause notices before seizure orders, emphasizing the need for genuine and existing documents. The transit declaration form, produced after the goods were detained, was deemed not genuine, as it was created later. Therefore, the absence of a bona fide transit declaration justified the seizure, and the estimated value of the goods was contested.

Issue 2: Reduction of estimated value of seized goods by the Tribunal:
The seizing authority estimated the goods' market value at Rs.72 lakhs based on newspaper values, but the Tribunal reduced it to Rs.25 lakhs without providing reasons or referring to supporting material. The assessee had presented three invoices, which could have been used to assess the value, but this was not done. The Standing Counsel failed to justify the valuation of Rs.72 lakhs or Rs.25 lakhs. Consequently, the court found the estimation of Rs.25 lakhs unacceptable and instead considered Rs.9 lakhs based on the invoices produced at the time of seizure.

In conclusion, the seizure was upheld, and the seized goods were to be released upon furnishing security equivalent to 15% of the revised value of Rs.9 lakhs. The revenue's revision failed, while the assessee's revision was disposed of with modifications to the Tribunal's order regarding the value estimation of the seized goods.