9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 48(7) of the U.P. VAT contemplates that the officer seizing the goods shall serve the notice on the dealer or the person incharge with regard to the seizure of the goods. In the instant case, the person incharge of the goods at the relevant moment of time was the driver of the vehicle who was transporting the goods. The SCN and thereafter the seizure order were issued in the name of the driver - When the goods are detained it is not humanly possible to serve the notice to the owner of the goods who is sitting some where else in some other part of the country outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. The goods detained are required to be handled and disposed off at the earliest. In such circumstance, unless otherwise instructed by the owner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for release of the goods. Thereafter an application under Section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act was filed before the Joint Commissioner wherein the petitioner appeared personally. This application was rejected on 7th December, 2011 pursuant to which, an appeal was filed before the Tribuanl which was also rejected on 4th January, 2012. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the High Court which was disposed of by an order dated 25th January, 2012 wherein the High Court affirmed the seizure order but directed the petitioner to deposit the security in the shape of cash equal to tax which was liable to be paid on the goods and thereupon the goods would be released. The value of tax worked out by the department was ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no provision under the Act to release part of the goods. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, we find it strange that the petitioner does not dispute the deposit of Rs. One lac made by the driver on 22nd December, 2011 and only dispute the receiving of the goods by the driver. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the petitioner paid the security separately pursuant to the order of the High Court. In fact, the order sheet of the Commercial Tax Officer who had seized the goods indicates that 490 bags were released without demanding any further security inasmuch as the amount of Rs. One lac deposited earlier covered the security f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax as in our opinion, the driver was the person incharge at that moment of time. This view of ours is also fortified by a decision of this Court in M/s Gopal Carriers Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary and four others in Writ Tax No. 797 of 2013 decided 24th September, 2013 in which it has been held that the person incharge of the vehicle would include a driver and transporter as well. We also find from the provision of Section 48 that there is no embargo of releasing the goods in part. In the absence of any provision it is the discretion of the authority to release the goods either upon receiving the entire amount as demanded or release a part of the goods upon furnishing security to that extent. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
