9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ISHNA , J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. Heard the counsel for the parties. Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, agreed that instead of hearing the revision for admission, the revision may be heard and decided finally. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the revision is being decided finally. The applicant, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act established a unit at D-9, Panki, Site-1, Kanpur for the purposes of manufacture and sale of auto parts. For some reason, the applicant decided to close down the said unit with effect from March 31, 2007. The information of the closure of the unit was given to the Trade Tax Department. Due to the closure of the unit, the applicant decided to shift the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Second Appeal No. 109 of 2008 unsuccessfully. The Tribunal by the order under revision has dismissed the appeal. Shri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the seizure order as well as the order demanding the security are wholly arbitrary and illegal. He submits that under section 13A(4) of the Act, goods can be seized only under the following two circumstances: (1) When the goods are not traceable to a bona fide dealer, or (2) When the goods are not properly accounted for in the account books. Elaborating the argument he submits that on a plain reading of section 13A(4), the seizure is unjustified, for the reason that it does not talk about a registered dealer . The Tribunal wrongly interpreted secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007. Naturally the capital items were required to be shifted somewhere else and were being shifted to its sister concern. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, there appears force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the goods were not meant for sale. A bare perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal itself has observed that whether a sale has taken place or whether there will be any liability to pay the tax or penalty will be considered at the appropriate stage. This observation is indicative of the fact that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal was not confident that by transferring the goods in question the sale is being suppressed by the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods also accompanied form 16 issued by the Uttaranchal Trade Tax Department. The said form is used when a person brings good from outside for sale, i.e., State of Uttaranchal to inside the State for sale. An inference that it creates a reasonable doubt that the goods were meant for sale was drawn. Under section 13A(4) goods cannot be seized on the ground of suspicion howsoever it strong may be. The Tribunal itself has found that the goods are traceable to bona fide dealer but are not duly account for by the dealer in the account books. Whether the applicant is dealer or not is required to be find out first. There being no such finding, the order of seizure cannot be sustained. Viewed as above, I find sufficient force in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
