9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and to direct the release of the goods on deposit of security of 20% of the value of the goods ? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has rebutted the presumption under Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 ?" Sri S.D. Singh submits that various relevant statutory documents/forms a invoice and a billty were found accompanied with the goods including a declaration form No.N-2 under the Rubber Rules 1955. The goods were consigned from Tripura to Faridabad (Haryana ). The only mistake due to ignorance committed by the driver of the truck was that he could not download transit declaration form, while entering into the State of U.P. and merely for this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of material found at the time of inspection of the vehicle, cannot be said to be unjustified. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the goods in question is raw-rubber and the movement of which is regulated by the provisions of the Rubber Rules 1955. When the vehicle was intercepted on 12.7.2014, the goods i.e., raw-rubber loaded therein was found accompanied with Form-B-VII of Commercial Tax Department of Bihar State, Slip No.20140205178 dated 8.7.2014 and form of declaration No.20140639115 dated 8.7.2005 of Arunachal Government, Challan Form No.XXVII-87269 of M/s ABC India Ltd., Form-35-H consignment copy No. SR-79922, cash/credit memo/Bill No.01 of Ms. Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which no person shall transport rubber. The consignee M/s Golden Rubber Chemicals hold a license under rule 39A. Thus, it was fully established by the applicant/consignee that the goods were being transported from Tripura to Haryana. The presumption under Section 52 of the Act, was successfully rebutted by the applicant/consignee by producing relevant documents at the time of inspection of the goods which was followed by the TDF. On the facts of the present case this Court is fully satisfied that the applicants have successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 52 of the Act and as such there was no occasion for the respondent authorities either to seize the goods or to ask for security for release of the goods. The Tribunal commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
