9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pump is 24 lakhs, on which concessional rate of central tax @ 2% being a sum of Rs. 48,000/-, was payable. The case of the revisionist is that the aforesaid pump was being transported to the consignee at Chattisgarh through M/s. Aman Transport Company. The driver, who was himself the owner of vehicle No. U.P. 11 T - 0093, got issued Transport Declaration Form (in short 'TDF') No. D20140500331540 dated 29.05.2014 from the website of U.P. Commercial Tax Department for movement of the goods from Dehradun, Uttarakhand to Raigarh Chhattisgarh. The TDF has been brought on record as Annexure 4, according to which, the tentative date for entering the State of U.P. was 29th May 2014 and the tentative date of exit was 31st May 2014 at 21:30:00 hours at Saiyan, Agra. It seems that the truck was intercepted by the Mobile squad Authorities of the Commercial Tax Department on 01.06.2014 at the entry point i.e. Raksha, Jhansi and, it was detained and a show cause notice was issued under section 48 read with section 50 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') apprehending that the goods are being brought inside the State of U.P. for sale witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. However, the Joint Commissioner (SIP/Administration), Commercial Tax, vide order dated 04.06.2014 confirmed the seizure of the goods and upheld the demand of security to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.06.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Perusal of the impugned seizure order would show that apart from the objection regarding TDF, the other objection was that photocopy of builty issued by M/s. Rajendra Carrying Corporation was found in possession of the driver and not the original builty of the transporter M/s. Aman Transport Company through whom admittedly the goods were being transported. As regards the said objection, it is submitted that the builty of M/s. Aman Transport Company was being duly carried by the driver apart from a photocopy of the builty of M/s. Rajendra Carrying Corporation, but the same was not mentioned by the authorities. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, there is no requirement either under section 52 or under any order issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & others 2013 U.P.T.C. 912 it has been held that as the goods were moving along with necessary documents and the department has neither raised any question or doubt about the genuineness of the documents which were accompanying the goods at the time of interception, merely for the reason that the goods were not accompanied by Transit Declaration Form which was produced subsequently the seizure of goods becomes bad. Therefore, even if the production of the Transit Declaration Form in response to the show cause notice was an afterthought for which no credit could have been given to it in view of Naresh Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax 2013 U.P.T.C.843 wherein it has been held that Transit Declaration Form produced in response to the show cause notice after downloading it subsequent to detention cannot be recognized as an authentic document, as possession and production of Transit Declaration Form for carrying goods through the State of U.P. is not a ground for seizure, the seizure is without jurisdiction. The absence of Transit Declaration Form only gives rise to a rebuttable presumption and may attract penal consequences but the goods cannot be seized for non-production of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisgarh for which the truck has to pass through the State of U.P. at two points. It is not disputed that after taking exit at Agra, covering some distance of Madhya Pardesh, it had to again enter at Jhansi and then take exit at Lalitpur for reaching the destination. The case of the applicant is that the driver of the truck, who was also its owner, was going on the said route for the first time and he was not aware of the fact that after exit at Agra, the truck will again have to enter and pass through the State of U.P. On account of lack of knowledge, in this regard, he mentioned in the TDF that truck will exit the State of U.P. on 31.05.2014 at Saiyam, Agra though he should have downloaded another TDF showing re-entry at Jhansi and exit at Lalitpur. Further, as held by this Court in the same case of M/s. Prakash Transport Corporation (supra), the absence of transit declaration form may attract penal consequences but it does not warrant seizure of the goods. In the facts of the present case, there is every likelihood that in case penal proceedings are drawn against the applicant, there are fair chances that the applicant may succeed in proving that the seized good is not meant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
