9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision under Section 58 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2008") was entertained to consider the following two questions of law: i. Whether seizure of goods in purported exercise of power under Section 50 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act,2008 was justified? ii. Whether quantum and form of security demanded for release of the goods was excessive and arbitrary? 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain as to why the chassis be not seized. The Driver submitted explanation through his authorized representative/Advocate Sri M.K. Arora wherein he claimed that he was taking chassis to Moradabad for getting its body built thereat and not for sale. He also said that owner of vehicle had purchased chassis against a loan sanctioned by Bank. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, however, vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chassis was not brought in U.P. in connection with any business so as to attract Section 50(1) particularly when there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The chassis having been purchased against bank loan, could not have been resold anywhere and, therefore also, seizure of chassis is patently illegal. 5. The record shows that revisionist is not a mere Driver but the owner of chassis in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of above material, can form an opinion that the Driver or owner has brought chassis in State of U.P. for sale, by evading payment of tax. A chassis registered on temporary basis and hypotheticated to Bank, cannot be sold without several formalities in which various other agencies like Transport Department, HDFC Bank etc. are involved. It is not the case of revisionist that a person, purchasing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
