2015 (11) TMI 1806 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of seizure order - allegation is that the entries made in Form 21 accompanying the goods were likely to vanish and would not remain secure for long - HELD THAT - The only discrepancy pointed out for seizing the goods is that Form 21 was filled up by two separate pens as is evident from the ink used therein and that some of the entries made by one of pen was in such a ink that they were likely to fade away and ultimately vanish. It is only on the above ground that the some of the entries in Form 21 would ultimately vanish that the order was passed directing the seizure of the goods. The Act and the Rules does not prescribe the type or the nature of the ink to be used in filling up the prescribed Form. There is no provision under the Act which provide for seizing the goods on account of use of improper ink in filing up the Forms or for the reasons that some of the entries made in the documents would ultimately vanish. The assessee has produced extract of the copies of the register maintained by it containing entires of dispatch of the aforesaid goods and its receipt by consignee. In view of these documents, it cannot be said that the assessee had committed any illegality in the transportation of the goods and that they were not accompanied by the necessary documents duly filled up. The question raised above is answered in favour of the revisionist and against the revenue and it is held that the Tribunal committed an error in affirming the order of seizer. The goods were not liable to be seized for the reason that the entries in the prescribed Form accompanying the goods were in such ink as would not last long - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods based on the ink used in filling up Form-21 during transportation.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the seizure of goods during transportation due to the manner in which Form-21 was filled up. The revisionist, a registered dealer under U.P.V.A.T. Act 2008 and Central Sales Tax Act, consigned M.S. Ingots to a consignee, which were seized on the grounds that the entries in Form-21 were filled with two different inks, with one ink likely to fade away. The revisionist's representation was rejected, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal, which also affirmed the seizure order.

The primary issue for consideration was whether the seizure order was justified based on the ink used in Form-21. Section 48 of the Act provides grounds for seizure, including incorrect particulars in documents issued by a dealer. Rule 55 allows seizure if documents are false, incorrect, or incomplete. However, there is no provision specifying the type of ink to be used in filling up forms.

The judgment highlighted that all necessary documents, including Form-21, were properly filled up during the seizure. The contention was solely based on the possibility of entries vanishing due to the ink used. It was emphasized that if authorities had concerns about vanishing entries, they should have photocopied and counter-signed the form to prevent misuse.

Moreover, the revisionist provided additional documents like G.R. and weigh slips to substantiate the entries made in Form-21. The court concluded that there was no illegality in transportation as all required documents were duly filled up. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in affirming the seizure order, and it was held that the goods were not liable to be seized based on the ink issue.

Ultimately, the judgment allowed the revision, setting aside the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal and Assistant Commissioner, directing the immediate release of the goods. The decision was based on the lack of legal grounds to justify the seizure solely due to the nature of ink used in filling up Form-21 during transportation.