SWASTIK TRADING AGENCY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It appears that respondent No. 2, Sales Tax Officer, Check-post, Mugarra, district Mathura, purporting to act under section 28-A (6) read with section 13-A (6) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, seized certain goods belonging to the petitioner which were being carried in truck No. HNU-5079. THE seizure was effected on the ground that the goods transported had been undervalued in the documents accompanying the goods. By the same order respondent No. 2 directed that the seized goods can be released in favour of the petitioner provided it deposits an amount to the value of 40 per cent of the goods as determined by him in the impugned order. Against the order of seizure and demanding deposit by way of security, the petitioner made a representation before the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Check-Post/mobile Squad, Mathura, respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 found that the value of the goods determined by respondent No. 2 was highly excessive and he raveled the sized goods, as a result whereof the undervaluation attributed to the assessee was found less than 50 per cent of the market value of the goods seized. THE Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, accordingly directed that the goods be released in favour of the petitioner on its furnishing security for an amount representing 40 per cent of the value as determined by him. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has come up to this Court through this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid two orders and also a direction to the respondents to release the seized goods without demanding any security. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. During the course of hearing a circular dated 13th April, 1989, issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was brought to our notice. According to the said circular even if there is contravention of the provisions of section 28-A (6) read with section 13-A (6) of the Act, the goods need not be seized if the undervaluation is less than 50 per cent of the market value. THE circular further recites that in such a situation the goods may be released in favour of the person concerned after taking samples of the goods seized. For the respondents, it was not disputed before us that on the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said circular. In this view of the matter, we find no justification on the part of the respondents either to seize the goods or in requiring the petitioner to deposit security. THE goods were liable to be released in favour of the petitioner after taking the samples as provided in the circular mentioned above. Accordingly, we direct that respondent No. 2 shall release the goods seized by his order dated 9th February, 1990, in favour of the petitioner forthwith without demanding any security for the same and after taking samples of the seized goods, as provided in the circular, dated 13th April, 1989. Subject to the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of. A certified copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner within forty-eight hours on payment of the usual charges. Ordered accordingly. .