9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quisite documents, no presumption arises under law that they were likely to be sold within the State of U.P. Appeal allowed. The authorities were not justified in passing the order of seizure and the higher authorities committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the representation and appeal of the revisionist. - Commercial Tax Revision No. 341 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2012 - PANKAJ MITHAL, J. For the Appellant : M.M. Rai For the Respondent : B.K. Pandey, standing counsel, PANKAJ MITHAL J.- The instant revision under section 58 of the U.P.Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) has been filed by the transporter of the goods challenging the order of seizure dated March 5, 2012, rejection of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the Department. Since the matter relates to the seizure and no other documents are required to be brought on record and the facts have clearly been stated in the impugned orders, they agree for the final disposal of the revision at the threshold. Sri Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the goods seized were fully covered by the invoice bilties and the transit declaration form and the discrepancy that some items were short and some were in excess is based only on account of the fact that the verification was done itemwise whereas the goods were in packages. Actually, there is no discrepancy in this regard. Secondly, he has submitted that the genuineness of the dealers is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of providing safeguards or the transit declaration form in connection with the goods in transit through the State of U.P., is to ensure that the goods which enter the State passes out of U.P., and are not sold inside so as to evade payment of tax. In the light of the above purpose, the existence of the selling and purchasing dealers or their non-registration in their respective States would not be a material and a valid ground for seizing the goods. A Division Bench of this court in Saiya Transport Pvt. Limited v. State of U.P. [2006] UPTC 967 while considering a similar provision of section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 concerning seizure of goods in transit held that genuineness of consignor and consignee and their registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods opined that if in the relevant form the goods have been described package-wise then verification cannot be done. It is on the basis of pieces available inside the packages. In view of the above, as no discrepancy in the packages referred to in the documents was found, it cannot be said that the goods were not covered by the relevant documents. The verification on the basis of pieces inside the packages is permissible only when a finding is returned that the packages have been broken and the goods have been replaced. In addition to the above, it has been emphasised that goods are not liable to be seized when the time for exit disclosed in the transit declaration form has not expired. In support reliance has been placed upon M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
