2013 (3) TMI 337 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure orders - Transit Declaration Form of goods by mistake have been described as cotton fabric instead of cotton coated fabric and the Tin number of the Kolkata dealer differs slightly - transporter asked for release of goods as show cause notice has been issued to driver of the vehicle - revision application - Held that - In reality the notice and the order is required to be served upon the dealer but as on spot the dealer is not to be found, it is permitted to be served upon the person incharge of the vehicle/goods with the intention that he will inform the dealer who would appear and contest the proceedings or allow them to be persued by the person incharge. Thus, by mere service of the show cause notice upon the person incharge of the vehicle or the order of the seizure upon him would again not make him the person aggrieved to ask for the release of the goods or for waving the security demanded unless the transporter produces an authority of the owner of the goods to get them released on his behalf. The transporter who is not the owner of the seized goods has no right or interest in them therefore, refusal of the authorities to release the said goods without security does not infringe any legal right of the transporter so as to give him a right to challenge the order. The transporter is not a person who has wrongly been deprived of any entitlement of legal right or who has suffered adversely in legal sense on the seizure of goods or on refusal to release them without security. The transporter is not a person aggrieved who can raise any grievance either against the seizure of the goods or against refusal to release the same without security. He at best can only complaint about the confinement of his vehicle in which the seized goods were loaded and were being carried. The vehicle is not the subject matter of seizure and the transporter can always ask the authorities to allow the vehicle to go without insisting for the release of the goods. No case law submitted by transporter is acceptable as does not help him to substantiate his plea that he is a person aggrieved entitle to release of the goods. It is important to note that the transporter has not specifically challenged the order of the tribunal dated 7.2.2013. A challenge to the order of seizure dated 4.12.2012 directly in revision is not acceptable. The relief to release the seized goods without any security does not involve any question of law as the condition for release of the goods is dependent upon the discretion of the authority concerned. Therefore, no relief in this regard is permissible in exercise of revisional power under Section 58 of the Act - revision as such fails and is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of seizure dated 4.12.2012.
2. Transporter's entitlement to release of seized goods without security.
3. Definition and applicability of "person aggrieved" in the context of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
4. Jurisdiction and powers of the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner under Section 48(7) of the Act.
5. Appeal and revision provisions under Sections 57(4) and 58 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of Seizure:
The transporter challenged the seizure order dated 4.12.2012, arguing that the goods were described incorrectly in the Transit Declaration Form and that all necessary documents were present. The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax passed the seizure order under Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, demanding security for release. Section 60 of the Act explicitly states that no appeal or revision lies against an order of seizure, thus making the seizure order unchallengeable in this revision.

2. Transporter's Entitlement to Release of Seized Goods Without Security:
The transporter sought the release of goods without providing security, which was rejected by the authorities. Under Section 48(7) of the Act, the Commissioner or an authorized officer can direct the release of goods without deposit or on lesser security but cannot adjudicate the validity of the seizure. The transporter's application under Section 48(7) and subsequent appeal under Section 57(4) were dismissed, confirming the requirement of security for release.

3. Definition and Applicability of "Person Aggrieved":
The court examined whether the transporter qualifies as a "person aggrieved" under Section 57(4) of the Act. The term "person aggrieved" refers to someone whose personal, pecuniary, or proprietary rights are directly and injuriously affected by a decision. The transporter, not being the owner or dealer of the goods, does not suffer a legal injury from the seizure or security demand, and thus, is not considered a "person aggrieved."

4. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner:
The Commissioner/Additional Commissioner is authorized under Section 48(7) to order the release of seized goods without deposit or on lesser security but lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the seizure's validity. The transporter's appeal focused on the condition of release rather than the seizure itself, which the court found outside the Commissioner's adjudicative powers.

5. Appeal and Revision Provisions:
The court emphasized that Section 60 of the Act precludes appeals or revisions against seizure orders. The transporter's revision under Section 58, challenging the seizure and seeking release without security, was deemed inadmissible as it did not involve a question of law but rather the discretion of the authority concerned.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the transporter, not being the owner of the goods, lacks the locus to demand their release and is not a "person aggrieved" eligible to challenge the order under Section 48(7) or appeal under Section 57(4). The revision was dismissed, affirming the requirement of security for the release of the seized goods.

← Previous Next →