2014 (4) TMI 591 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Tribunal was justified in affirming the order of seizure even by ignoring its own finding - Order of seizure Excuse of unavailability of weightment slip - Refusal of acceptance of Documents by AC Action of AC not Bona-fide - Held that - Delhi-U.P. border area is of four kilometers which is considered to be a free zone and the transporter could have got weighment done anywhere in the entire area and when it was intercepted still there was sufficient distance within which he could have got his vehicle weighed, hence seizure of goods on the ground that weighment slip was not available, is totally misconceived and is not justified - Moreover, when action of AC has not been found genuine and bona fide, as is evident from the findings recorded by Tribunal, the impugned order, even otherwise, cannot be sustained The impugned order of Tribunal is quashed - The revision is allowed with costs of Rs. 5000/- - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Justification of affirming the order of seizure by the Tribunal.
2. Application of penal provision under Section 54(a)(15) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 to the transportation of goods.

Analysis:
1. The revisionist challenged the Tribunal's decision affirming the order of seizure, arguing that the Assistant Commissioner's actions were suspicious. The Tribunal acknowledged discrepancies in the Assistant Commissioner's conduct, noting that the driver did not have documents initially, but they were produced later. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents provided by the appellant, criticizing the Assistant Commissioner for not considering them at face value. The Tribunal also highlighted that the area where the vehicle was intercepted was within a free zone where the transporter could have obtained weighment, rendering the seizure unjustified.

2. The revisionist contended that the absence of a weighment slip should not have led to the seizure of goods, as the transporter had the opportunity to get the vehicle weighed up to the end point. The Court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the lack of a weighment slip was not a valid reason for the seizure. The Court further noted that the Assistant Commissioner's actions were not genuine and bona fide, as indicated by the Tribunal's findings. Consequently, the Court held that the seizure of goods was unjustified and unsustainable. As a result, the questions of law raised were resolved in favor of the assessee, leading to the quashing of the Tribunal's order and allowing the revision with costs imposed on the respondent.