2021 (11) TMI 866 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure of agricultural produce recovered from the godown - reliability of documents produced like photo copies of the revenue records like Khasara and Khatauni - scope of the term dealer - HELD THAT - The proviso to the definition of dealer excludes a person who is not a body corporate, and who sells agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest, whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant, lessee or otherwise, in respect of such goods. From perusal of the record of this revision particularly the order of seizure as well as the first appellate order, this primordial aspect has not been taken into account by the authorities concerned. Under the circumstances and the facts of the present case, there is no such issue in the order passed by the Tribunal that may warrant framing of question of law under Section 58 of the Act. Revision fails - revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of order of seizure under Section 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008; Interpretation of the definition of 'dealer' under Section 2(h) of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to the order of seizure of agricultural produce under Section 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The revisionist contended that the order of seizure was challenged by the opposite party in an appeal under Section 55 of the Act, which was initially rejected, but later allowed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 162 of 2019. The Tribunal relied on a report of a committee constituted by the District Magistrate, which the first appellate authority did not consider. The revisionist argued that only photocopies of revenue records were furnished and should not have been relied upon by the Tribunal. The opposite party, represented by counsel, argued that they were not a 'dealer' under the Act as they were a farmer storing their agricultural produce in their own farm and godown. The definition of 'dealer' under Section 2(h) of the Act was cited, which includes various categories of persons engaged in buying, selling, supplying, or distributing goods for valuable consideration. However, the proviso to the definition of 'dealer' excludes a person who sells agricultural or horticultural produce grown by themselves or on land in which they have an interest, from being treated as a dealer.

The High Court observed that the authorities involved did not take into account the crucial aspect of the proviso to the definition of 'dealer' while considering the order of seizure and the first appellate order. The Court noted that the opposite party, being a farmer selling their own agricultural produce, fell within the exemption provided in the proviso to the definition of 'dealer'. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to warrant the framing of a question of law under Section 58 of the Act based on the issues presented in the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the Court dismissed the revision, upholding the position that the opposite party, as a farmer selling their own agricultural produce, was not to be treated as a 'dealer' under the Act.