2018 (8) TMI 1327 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods with vehicle - goods were perishable in nature - Why the person who has proceeded to transport the goods in question, which is Gambier, has not come forward before this Court and has not filed his affidavit? Held that - Without entering into this controversy which can be adjudicated by the authorities in due course and since the goods are admittedly detained and seized since more than 14 months back and are perishable in nature, this Court finds it proper to release the goods on deposit of cash, security and bank guarantee - revision petition disposed off without entering into the merit of the case.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petitions against the impugned order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 10.05.2018.
2. Discrepancy in the details provided in the revision petition and the affidavit filed in support.
3. Misreading of the date of entry and exit of the vehicle in the Transit Declaration Form (TDF).
4. Detention and seizure of goods, and subsequent legal proceedings.
5. Order for release of goods subject to conditions and verification of movement.

Analysis:

1. The revision petitions were filed against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 10.05.2018. The Tribunal had initially misread the date of entry and exit of the vehicle in the Transit Declaration Form (TDF), leading to discrepancies in the valuation of goods. A supplementary affidavit introduced new facts regarding the valuation of goods, prompting a fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

2. A discrepancy arose as the revision was filed by one individual, while the supporting affidavit was filed by another person. This raised questions about the authenticity of the information provided and the involvement of the actual parties concerned. The Court noted this discrepancy and the lack of participation by the person involved in transporting the goods.

3. The Court found that the vehicle in question was detained by the authorities, but there was a dispute regarding the route and circumstances of the detention. The revisionist claimed that the vehicle was passing through the route mentioned in the TDF at the time of detention, while the Standing Counsel disputed this claim. Due to the perishable nature of the goods and the prolonged detention, the Court ordered the release of goods subject to specified conditions.

4. The detention and seizure of goods were deemed to be potentially illegal due to the circumstances surrounding the detention and the route mentioned in the TDF. The Court directed the revisionist to deposit a sum of money and provide security for the release of goods. Additionally, the authorities were instructed to allow the revisionist to take away the goods and submit relevant documents for verification.

5. The Court issued specific directives for the release and verification of the goods, including the endorsement of a fresh E-way bill at the exit point and the submission of relevant documents post-delivery. The movement of goods from the border of the State of U.P. was to be verified by the authority near the exit point. Both revision petitions were disposed of without delving into the merits of the case, with a provision for subsequent proceedings if required by the department.