9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1149 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRelease of confiscate goods - requirement of Form 21 - Held that - if the respondent assessee deposits the cash security as offered, the goods shall be released - merits of the case not examined - decided partly in favor of resppondent-assessee.
Issues:
Challenging order under U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - Seizure of goods for tax evasion - Second Appeal No. 624 of 2016 - Form-21 requirement - Tribunal's decision on cross-examination - Statutory obligations under U.P. VAT Rules, 2008. Analysis: The High Court heard the revisionist challenging the order dated 29.11.2016 in Second Appeal No. 624 of 2016 under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The case involved the interception of two trucks carrying 'Sariya' without proper documentation, leading to a show cause notice for tax evasion. The respondent filed an application under Section 48(7) of the Act, which was rejected by the Joint Commissioner. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ordering the goods' release without security, citing lack of cross-examination opportunity for the driver. However, the High Court found the Tribunal's decision arbitrary, failing to consider the absence of Form-21, a mandatory requirement for transportation. The Court stayed the impugned order and admitted the case for further legal scrutiny. The respondent argued that as per a circular, Form-21 was not required for invoices below 9 Metric Tons. The standing counsel contended that despite multiple invoices below 9 Metric Tons, the total weight of goods exceeded 17 Metric Tons, indicating an attempt to evade taxes. The respondent offered to deposit cash security for the goods' release, which the standing counsel accepted. Consequently, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, allowing the goods' release upon the deposit of Rs. one lac as cash security. The Court clarified that its decision did not address the case's merits, leaving the authority to impose penalties and frame assessments independently. The revision was disposed of, concluding the legal proceedings regarding the challenged order under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.
|
