2013 (7) TMI 100 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of goods under Section 50 of the U.P. Valued Added Tax - orders for conditional release of goods on payment of 40% of the value of the goods as security - whether transporter of the goods though a person incharge of the vehicle is not owner of the goods and thus has no locus standi to demand the release of the seized goods in his independent capacity? - Held that - Since the owner of the goods had filed objections and his objections were rejected, it is always open to him as well as the transporter to file representation under the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 48 before the same authority and thereafter if they are not satisfied with the order, to file an appeal under Section 57 (4) of the Act. Unable to agree with the submissions that the transporter of the goods, who is person incharge is not entitled to file representation under Section 48 (7) and appeal under Section 57 (4) of the Act as expression person aggrieved is much wider than the expression party aggrieved - writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of filing representation under the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Act, and thereafter an appeal, if necessary.

Summary

Issues:
Seizure of goods under Section 50 of the U.P. Valued Added Tax Act, validity of the transaction, locus standi of transporter to demand release of seized goods, rights of owner of goods to file objections, availability of alternative remedies.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, had goods seized under Section 50 of the U.P. Valued Added Tax Act. The petitioner and the owner of the goods objected to the seizure, stating the goods were dispatched from Delhi to be transported to Patna with all relevant documents. The Asstt. Commissioner relied on a previous transportation incident by the same transporter, raising doubts on the current transaction's validity. However, no illegality was found in the present transaction, and the Asstt. Commissioner's reliance on the past incident was deemed insufficient for the seizure.

The petitioner argued that as per a judgment, a transporter, not being the owner of the goods, lacks standing to demand release of seized goods independently. The court noted the absence of findings on the current transaction's validity by the Asstt. Commissioner. While the owner of the goods had filed objections, their reasons for not approaching the court were not provided. The court expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation and suggested the owner could file a separate writ petition if necessary.

The court opined that the transporter, being a person in charge, could file a representation under Section 48(7) and an appeal under Section 57(4) of the Act, contrary to the petitioner's argument. However, the court refrained from delving into the merits of this argument in the current case. Since the owner's objections were rejected, the court dismissed the writ petition citing the availability of alternative remedies, such as filing a representation and subsequent appeal. The court directed prompt decision-making on any such representations, ideally within a week of receipt by the relevant authority.