2014 (3) TMI 1241 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Confiscation of goods under the U.P. V.A.T. Act 2008 - SCN issued mainly on the ground that the papers of the transported goods by the said vehicle were neither produced by the vehicle driver at the time of checking of the vehicle nor was produced till the issuance of show cause notice - HELD THAT - The Court feels that neither the papers were available with the revisionist nor they were produced within a reasonable period. The statements of the Driver which is obtained at the first instance should be given more sanctity than the explanation which are produced by the managers and proprietors later-on. In the present case it has been argued that the driver was standing outside the gate of the industry where the goods were unloaded when inspection was made. He straight away mentioned that he had handed away the papers just now to the people who were inside the gate. If this was true then he should have gone and brought the papers back for showing it to the authorities but it was not done. Instead three days time was taken to produce it from Kanpur. The Court is not satisfied with this explanation. Revision dismissed.

Summary

The judgment issued by the Allahabad High Court pertains to a revision filed against a judgment and order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in a case involving the confiscation of goods under the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008. The key issues considered in this case include the failure to produce papers for transported goods, the timing of submission of documents, and the justification for the confiscation of goods. The Court analyzed the relevant legal framework, precedents, evidence, and arguments presented by both parties before making its determinations.The facts of the case revolve around the checking of a vehicle carrying goods outside an industrial area in Lucknow. The vehicle driver failed to produce papers for the goods, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice under the U.P. V.A.T. Act. The firm owning the goods provided an explanation stating that the papers had been given to the buyer firm and were not available during the inspection. Despite the explanation, the Assistant Commissioner confiscated the goods and demanded security. Subsequent appeals to higher authorities resulted in a partial acceptance of the appeal by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, which ordered the release of goods upon depositing security.The Court considered the timing of document submission, comparing it to relevant precedents such as M/s. Ganpati Udog vs. CCT and M/s. Balaji Timbers & Paints vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. It noted that in those cases, only specific documents were missing, unlike the present case where no documents were produced initially. The Court also highlighted the importance of prompt document submission, citing cases where documents were produced on the same day as notices were issued.In analyzing the arguments, the Court emphasized the significance of the driver's initial statement and the delay in producing documents from Kanpur. The Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, indicating that the papers were not readily available and may have been fabricated. The Court distinguished this case from others cited by both parties, noting the specific circumstances and the lack of technical errors that would warrant additional time for document submission.Ultimately, the Court concluded that the revisionist failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the absence of documents and the delay in submission. As a result, the revision was dismissed, affirming the decision to confiscate the goods. The Court's ruling was based on the lack of credible evidence and the failure to meet the standards set by relevant judgments in similar cases.In summary, the judgment delves into the importance of timely document submission, the credibility of explanations provided by parties, and the adherence to legal standards in cases involving the confiscation of goods under tax laws. The Court's decision underscores the need for transparency and compliance with regulatory requirements in commercial transactions to avoid adverse consequences such as confiscation.