9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By means of present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the seizure order dated August 29, 2007 passed under section 13A(6) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) annexure 1 to the writ petition. After seizing the goods on the value of Rs. 18,03,750, a sum of Rs. 4,32,900 has been demanded towards security. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of deshi ghee in its factory situated at Aligarh. It is claimed that the petitioner had sale depots in different States across the country and used to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Agra however has not accepted the plea of the petitioner and vide impugned seizure order dated August 29, 2007 seized the goods. The goods have been mainly seized on the ground that the petitioner could not obtain 9R prescribed under the Mandi Adhiniyam in respect of the transaction and it has been inferred that the entry of such transaction was doubtful in the books of account. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 13A(1A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act the goods can only be seized when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submitted that the authority concerned has found that the transaction was inter-State sales and on the garb of the stock transfer the petitioner is evading the tax. He further submitted that the authority concerned has recorded the finding that the entries of the goods in the books of account is doubtful. He accordingly justifies the seizure of the goods. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the seizure order and other documents annexed with the writ petition and counter and rejoinder affidavit. Section 13A(1) of the Act reads as follows: Section 13A. Power to seize. (1) . . . (1A) Where any officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf has reason to believe that the goods found in any v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account have not been produced and the entries of the goods were not found available in the books of account. Whether the transaction was stock transfer or inter-State sales is a matter of consideration and adjudication in assessment proceeding. At this stage, the opinion formed by the officer concerned that the transaction was inter-State sales and not stock transfer and therefore the goods is liable to be seized is not justified. The claim of the petitioner that before the dispatch of the goods, the necessary information was given by E-mail has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. It may be mentioned here that on the earlier occasions also on the same ground the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax had seized the goods. On the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
