2013 (8) TMI 173 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of security - Goods other than those declared transit form seized - Tribunal upheld demand of security - Held that - Representation has been made by the driver of the vehicle himself; Transit Declaration Form relating to the vehicle in question was not accompanied with the goods; no documents relating to Battery Plates was found and vehicle has been intercepted on the route other than disclosed in the Transit Declaration Form - No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in vehicle details on Transit Declaration Form
- Seizure of goods and demand for security
- Rejection of representation by Joint Commissioner
- Dismissal of appeal by Commercial Tax Tribunal
- Legality and infirmity in the impugned order
- Lack of substantial question of law for interference

Discrepancy in vehicle details on Transit Declaration Form:
The case involves Revisionists engaged in the trade of iron products, transportation of goods, and manufacturing/selling of Galvanized Pipes & Tubes. A discrepancy arose when the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, pointed out that a different vehicle number appeared on the Transit Declaration Form compared to the actual vehicle transporting the goods. This led to a show cause notice being issued, and eventually, an impugned seizure order demanding security for the release of the goods.

Seizure of goods and demand for security:
Following the discrepancy in the vehicle details, the Assistant Commissioner passed a seizure order demanding security of RS.7,20,000 in cash for the release of the goods. Despite the driver's explanation attributing the error to a mistake by a Cyber Cafe operator, the authorities proceeded with the seizure and security demand, leading to a representation being filed by the driver of the vehicle.

Rejection of representation by Joint Commissioner:
The Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, rejected the representation filed by the driver of the vehicle on the grounds that the Transit Declaration Form was not accompanied by the goods, no documents related to Battery Plates were found, and the vehicle had been intercepted on a route different from the one disclosed in the Transit Declaration Form. This rejection affirmed the order of seizure and security demand, prompting the Revisionists to challenge this decision.

Dismissal of appeal by Commercial Tax Tribunal:
Despite the Revisionists' efforts to challenge the seizure order and security demand, the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the authorities below. The Tribunal's judgment/order dated 25.4.2013 confirmed the seizure and security demand, leading the Revisionists to seek relief through a Trade Tax Revision.

Legality and infirmity in the impugned order:
During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the Revisionist failed to identify any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Upon reviewing the orders of the authorities and the Tribunal, it was noted that concurrent findings of fact had been recorded, indicating that no substantial question of law merited interference in the Revision.

Lack of substantial question of law for interference:
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Trade Tax Revision, emphasizing that no substantial question of law arose from the case that warranted interference. The decision was based on the absence of identified legal issues or irregularities in the orders of the authorities and the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of the Revisionists' plea for relief.