2017 (6) TMI 382 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Deposit of 10% of the estimated value of goods seized for release of goods - case of assessee is that assessee is a registered dealer and in case any liability is fixed, the same can be realized and there was no justification for the authorities to require the revisionist to deposit cash security - Held that - It is not in dispute that revisionist is a registered dealer under U.P. VAT Act in the State, and in case any ultimate liability towards tax or penalty is imposed upon it, the same can always be realized - seized goods shall be released by the authorities, in case the revisionist submits an indemnity bond for the disputed amount in question - revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Seizure of goods and requirement of deposit for release

Analysis:
The revision pertains to challenging an order by the Tribunal directing the assessee to deposit 10% of the estimated value of seized goods for their release. The revisionist, a registered dealer, contended that the goods were being returned as the transaction could not materialize, supported by evidence of communication. The counsel argued that any liability could be realized, questioning the necessity of a cash security deposit. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel defended the seizure and the deposit requirement. The High Court observed that the revisionist being a registered dealer could address any imposed liabilities, and there was no evidence to suggest the goods were brought from outside the State, thus not attracting Section 50 provisions. The Court modified the Tribunal's order, directing the release of seized goods upon submission of an indemnity bond for the disputed amount, subject to final orders by the authorities. The revision was disposed of, emphasizing the need for authorities to assess issues comprehensively at the appropriate stage, allowing the revisionist to present defenses effectively.