9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 134 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of requirement to deposit 10% of total value of seized goods in cash and 30% by way of bank guarantee Seizure of truck on account of non-furnishing of documents Held that - After some argument, applicant as well as revenue agreed that the applicant shall furnish security to the extent of ₹ 2 lakhs only in cash and the remaining security of 30% in the form of personal guarantee of the proprietor of the applicant firm thus, the order of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2014 is modified and it is provided that the goods shall be released in favour of the applicant on furnishing cash security of ₹ 2 lakhs only in lump sum and the security for the remaining amount of 30% by way of personal guarantee of the proprietor of the applicant firm Decided partly in favour of petitioner.
Issues: Registration under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, seizure of goods, justification of security amount, nature of security demanded
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court involved a case where the applicant's consignment of goods was intercepted without proper documentation, leading to a seizure order. The applicant, registered under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, contended that they were a genuine firm and had submitted relevant bills and Form-38 to prove the import of goods. The Tribunal affirmed the seizure order but modified the security requirement, demanding 40% of the goods' value. The applicant argued that the demanded security was excessive, citing a precedent to support their claim. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the firm was bogus as it failed to produce documents promptly, indicating fabrication. The Revenue agreed that demanding security in the form of fixed deposit receipts was unjustified. Eventually, both parties agreed to a revised security amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and 30% as a personal guarantee. The Court modified the Tribunal's order accordingly, releasing the goods upon the revised security deposit. The revision was allowed based on the agreed-upon terms, addressing the issues of security amount and nature of security demanded.
|
