2017 (5) TMI 173 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of goods - deposit of security to the extent of tax liable to be paid on such goods - It is also pointed out by Revenue that the revisionist is an unregistered dealer in the State, which has sold goods within the State of U.P., with an intend to evade payment of tax - Section 3 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, protection whereof is claimed by the assessee to defend movement of goods - Held that - The prima facie observation of the Tribunal have however not been shown to be vitiated by any error of law or perversity. Once that be so, the revisionist would be treated to be unregistered dealer in the State, and is found to have sold goods within the State without payment of tax. In such circumstances, the order of seizure cannot be said to be unjustified. The revisionist, would therefore be required to protect the interest of revenue in terms of Section 48 (7) of the Act - the order of the Tribunal is modified, inasmuch as the release of goods would be allowed to the revisionist, if it furnishes cash security to the extent of amount payable towards tax - revision allowed - decided partly in favor of revisionist.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Tribunal's order allowing release of seized goods upon deposit of tax security.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure of Goods and Deposit of Security:
The case involves M/s Poonam Oil Industries challenging the Tribunal's order to release seized goods upon deposit of tax security. M/s Poonam Oil argued that the seizure was unjustified, and the direction to deposit security was excessive. The revenue contended that its interest needed protection, especially in penalty proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was based on rejecting the explanation provided by M/s Poonam Oil regarding the transfer of goods in transit.

2. Legal Interpretation of Central Sales Tax Act:
The legal arguments revolved around the interpretation of Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. M/s Poonam Oil claimed that the transfer of goods was covered under this section, allowing movement of goods without tax liability. However, the Tribunal found that the necessary criteria under Section 3(b) were not met in this case. The Court refrained from expressing a definite opinion to avoid prejudicing potential penalty proceedings.

3. Application of U.P. VAT Act - Section 48 (7):
The Court examined Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, which provides for the seizure of goods and the deposit of security. The purpose of this section is to safeguard the revenue's interest, especially in cases where tax evasion is suspected. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was found to be in line with the provisions of the Act.

4. Modification of Tribunal's Order:
Considering the arguments presented, the Court modified the Tribunal's order. It allowed the release of goods upon M/s Poonam Oil depositing the tax amount as security and furnishing an indemnity bond. The bond was also required from M/s Ridhi Oil, Kanpur, to cover the remaining amount. The seizure order was affirmed, and the revisions were disposed of with this modification.