2016 (8) TMI 135 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Form - 38 s did not accompany the goods in question. - Whether the authority was justified in effecting seizure even though the Form 38 s were subsequently submitted along with the reply to the show cause notice. - Held that - The Form - 38 neither accompanied the goods nor were its details mentioned in the invoices or bills of transportation which were found with the consignment. This fact has been duly recorded in the order of the Assistant Commissioner. This, therefore, is perhaps an indication that these Forms were prepared subsequent to the seizure. At least this possibility cannot be ruled out. On this state of the record the Assistant Commissioner, in the opinion of this Court, was fully justified in recording his satisfaction that an attempt had been made to evade payment of tax. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of seizure of goods at U.P. border due to lack of Form - 38 and subsequent penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
The revisionist challenged the order of seizure of goods at the U.P. border due to the absence of Form - 38. The revisionist contended that the goods were apprehended before reaching the godown and that the Form - 38 was submitted along with a reply to the show cause notice, hence seizure was unwarranted. Two primary submissions were made by the revisionist: (A) Goods were seized in "no mans land" against circular provisions; (B) Form - 38 was submitted along with the reply, negating the need for seizure. The revisionist relied on judgments to support the contentions. However, the Court found both submissions unconvincing. The circular did not restrict seizures near the border, and statutory powers allowed seizures throughout the state. The judgment cited by the revisionist did not support the claim that seizures couldn't occur in "no mans land." Regarding Form - 38, the Court noted that the goods lacked proper documentation initially, even though the Form - 38 was later submitted. The Assistant Commissioner was justified in seizing the goods as an attempt to evade tax payment was evident. The Court rejected the revisionist's reliance on another judgment where the goods were properly documented. Consequently, the Court upheld the seizure order and dismissed the revision.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that the seizure of goods at the U.P. border due to the absence of Form - 38 was valid, as initial lack of proper documentation indicated an attempt to evade tax payment. The revisionist's arguments regarding "no mans land" seizures and the submission of Form - 38 were deemed insufficient to overturn the seizure order. The Court emphasized the statutory authority for seizures throughout the state and upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision. Penalty proceedings were confirmed for one consignment, while dropped for another. The revision was dismissed, affirming the validity of the seizure order and the Assistant Commissioner's actions.