9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the second appeal filed by the assessee against the said order of the Joint Commissioner being Second Appeal No. 131/13 has been dismissed and thereby the order of the Joint Commissioner has been maintained. The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: Vehicle no. UP21N-4688 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner (In-charge), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad VIth Unit, Moradabad. It was found that chemicals were transported vide Builty No. 135/24-4-13 through the vehicle belonging to Jai Durga Transport Service, Ghaziabad. The builty disclosed that the goods were to be transported from Delhi to Goolar Bhoj (Uttrakhand). The goods were accompanied by Invoices, first dated 18th April, 2013 disclosing the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under the order impugned has held that the vehicle had been intercepted on 20th April, 2013. At the time of interception, neither any transit or declaration form was produced nor it could be downloaded from the official website. It has been held that the form was produced bearing the date as 22nd April, 2013. It has, therefore, been held that entry of the goods within the State of Uttar Pradesh without transit pass was in violation of the provisions of Section 52 read with Rule 58 of the Value Added Tax Act, which justified the seizure and the demand of security for release of the same. Learned counsel for the assessee with reference to the judgment of the High Court in the case of Commissioner Sales Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Rohit Surfactants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transit form produced had itself been generated only on 22nd April, 2013, which is clearly two days after the entry of the goods in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The generation of such transit pass in the opinion of the Court will not in any way dilute the mandatory requirements of the Value Added Tax Act as already noticed above. Therefore, in the facts of the case, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality in the orders of seizure of the goods and the demand of security for release of the same. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee are clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case, inasmuch as it has not been noticed in any of the judgments as to whether the declaration form itself had been gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
