9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... river which is obtained at the first instance should be given more sanctity than the explanation which are produced by the managers and proprietors later-on.
In the present case, it has been argued that the driver was standing outside the gate of the industry where the goods were unloaded when inspection was made. He straight away mentioned that he had handed away the papers just now to the people who were inside the gate. If this was true then he should have gone and brought the papers back for showing it to the authorities but it was not done. Instead three days' time was taken to produce it from Kanpur. The Court is not satisfied with this explanation.
Revision dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods loaded on the vehicle a show cause notice bearing No. 032483 dated 31.12.2013 under Section 48 of U.P. VAT Act and supplementary show cause notice no.032484 dated 02.1.2014 were issued by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, mobile squad, Ist Unit, Lucknow. 4. This show-cause notice was issued mainly on the ground that the papers of the transported goods by the said vehicle were neither produced by the vehicle driver at the time of checking of the vehicle nor was produced till the issuance of show cause notice. 5. The written reply to the said show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Ist Unit, Lucknow by firm Sarva Shri Ghata Mehandipur Balaji Grinding Works (Pvt.) Limited regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well considering the explanation submitted by the firm did not find the explanation satisfactory and on that basis demanded the security of Rs. 9,45,600/- on the assessed value of goods for Rs. 23,64,000/- confiscating the goods vide order No. 069167 dated 16.1.2014 under Section 48 of VAT Act. Being aggrieved by the confiscation order dated 16.1.2014 the appellant filed application before Joint Commissioner (Vi.Anu. Sha.) Commercial Tax, Lucknow. The Joint Commissioner vide his order dated 30.1.2014 rejected the application and supported the confiscation order. 7. The revisionist being aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner, preferred appeal bearing No. 75/2014 before the Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in these cases only form 38 was not available while in the present case, there is no document at all. So far M/s. Khoshboo Merchant tea-27 Naveen mandi, Saharanpur 2013 NTN (vol. 53) Tribunal-92 is concerned, it was with regard to penalty while the present case is about seizure. Similarly, M/s. Kamal Enter Prises Vs. C.C.T (2012) NTN (vol.48), the papers were produced on the same date when the notices were issued while in the present case the revisionist took three days to produce the tax invoice. This becomes particularly important because in the present case the papers had been handed over only to the persons inside the boundary at the same time, this fact can not be lost sight of that the seizure was made at Lucknow while the goods had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... page 315, judgment dated 19.7.2010 and the case of Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P., Lucknow vs. Sharad Sahu (Revision NO. 93 of 2011), judgment dated 7.4.2011 (2011) BLJ 205. 11. In all these judgments it has been observed that in case documents are not made available at the time of inspection, seizure would be justified. The judgments mentioned by the revisionist counsel are exceptions and can be invoked in particular circumstances where an opportunity is given to explain the conduct and deficiency on the part of the defaulters. These judgments make out a case of exceptions and not any rule. 12. The Court feels that neither the papers were available with the revisionist nor they were produced within a reasonable period. The statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
