9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party. The revision has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated April 7, 2011 directing for release of seized goods without any security. The only question raised and argued in this revision is whether the Tribunal was legally justified in directing for release of the goods without any security. The goods in the nature of TMT bars weighing 40 tons was detained on March 2, 2011 while in transit from Durgapur in West Bengal to Betul in Madhya Pradesh. After service of show-cause notice upon the dealer (vehicle owner/driver) the seizure order was passed on March 18, 2011 on the grounds that the existence of buyer and seller are doubtful; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation the presumption is that the goods are meant for sale within the State of U.P. Thus, if the goods are accompanied by the documents prescribed, no presumption as envisaged under the above provision can be drawn. Rule 55 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act authorises for inspection of the goods in transit and all documents and records relating to such goods and, if the officer making the inspection finds or has reason to believe that the goods are not covered by the documents or the documents are false, bogus, incomplete or invalid, issue notice calling upon the driver/ person in charge of the vehicle to show cause why the goods may not be seized. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., in accordance with the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid mistake has occurred on account of the fact that the selling dealer was having orders of various firms including that of Ghaziabad dealer and while entering TIN of the Madhya Pradesh dealer by mistake the TIN of the Ghaziabad dealer was mentioned. The aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact. I do not find any illegality in recording of the said finding as in normal trading such kind of errors may be common and it cannot be attributed to be with the object of defrauding the Revenue. Simply wrong mention of the TIN on invoice would not give rise to any presumption that the goods were being imported for sale inside the State of U.P. when otherwise the genuineness of the invoice is not in doubt. The stage of inquiry or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
