9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler in the State, and is found to have sold goods within the State without payment of tax. In such circumstances, the order of seizure cannot be said to be unjustified. The revisionist, would therefore be required to protect the interest of revenue in terms of Section 48 (7) of the Act - the order of the Tribunal is modified, inasmuch as the release of goods would be allowed to the revisionist, if it furnishes cash security to the extent of amount payable towards tax - revision allowed - decided partly in favor of revisionist. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 152-168 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2017 - Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. For the Applicant : Krishna Agarawal, Bipin Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of detention of goods. The explanation submitted by the revisionist was not accepted and a seizure order was passed. An application under Section 48 (7) was then moved before the Joint Commissioner, which also has been rejected with the observation that release of goods could be allowed only after furnishing of security to the extent of 40% of the value of goods. Aggrieved by such order, the revisionist has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which has been decided by the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently contends that the order of the seizure, as well as direction to it to deposit the amount equivalent to tax payable, is wholly unwarranted and is in excess of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revisionist is an unregistered dealer in the State, which has sold goods within the State of U.P., with an intend to evade payment of tax and for such act, appropriate penalty proceedings are liable to be drawn. The insistence by the revenue to protect the interest of the State in that regard is protected by law and contrary view taken by tribunal, is not justified. I have heard Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for the State and have perused the materials brought on record. Learned Counsel for the revisionist is right in contending that in seizure proceedings a definite finding with regard to nature of transaction being covered under Section 3 (b) or not, would ordinarily not be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Tribunal which is the highest fact finding authority under the Act, has not accepted the explanation of the revisionist with regard to transfer of goods in transit. Section 3 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, protection whereof is claimed by the assessee to defend movement of goods, may be noticed. Section 3 of the Act reads as under:- Section 3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.- A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase- (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by any error of law or perversity. Once that be so, the revisionist would be treated to be unregistered dealer in the State, and is found to have sold goods within the State without payment of tax. In such circumstances, the order of seizure cannot be said to be unjustified. The revisionist, would therefore be required to protect the interest of revenue in terms of Section 48 (7) of the Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a registered dealer in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the second party is registered in the State of U.P., and therefore, the direction to release goods only upon deposit of 40% of the value of goods, is highly excessive and unwarranted. Submission is that all such issues can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
