SRI DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the validity of the order dated October 29, 1991, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Special Investigation Branch ("SIB", for short), Allahabad, directing the petitioner to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards the release of the chassis of a truck which had earlier been seized by him in the purported exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The ground stated for seizure shortly is that the petitioner had obtained transit pass in form XXXIV on the false representation that the chassis was in transit through the State of Uttar Pradesh and was being taken to his residence at Rewa in Madhya Pradesh whereas on enquiry it was found that the real importers of the chassis were Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., Allahabad, which was bringing the same for sale within the State without obtaining the declaration forms XXXI and XXXII. Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was thereby clearly breached.

(2.) The relevant facts may be briefly summarised thus : Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., Allahabad, is a registered dealer carrying on the business of buying and selling chassis. On September 2, 1991, a chassis No. HR-05A/ 0312-B reached the sales tax check-post at Bhopura district, Ghaziabad on its way from Karnal. The driver, Mahendra Kumar, produced a temporary registration certificate and an invoice along with an application for issue of a transit pass in form XXXIV. Though these papers, prima facie, showed that the chassis was on its way to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, and the name of the petitioner was shown as the consignee, a little interrogation by the Sales Tax Officer at the check-post revealed that the real truth was being suppressed. The driver gave evasive replies from which the Sales Tax Officer concluded that the story that the chassis was in transit was a pure concoction. The chassis was accordingly detained by the Sales Tax Officer who declined to issue transit pass in form XXXIV. The Sales Tax Officer issued a show cause notice to Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. why the chassis should not be seized for violation of Section 28-A not having been accompanied by form XXXI prescribed under Section 28-A. As no reply was filed by Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., the Sales Tax Officer seized the chassis and demanded security for its release.

(3.) Interestingly, against the seizure, instead of Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., the petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant Commissioner, Check Post, under Section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act claiming that the chassis had been purchased by him and was in transit to Rewa (Madhya Pradesh). Taking the apparent state of things emerging from the temporary licence as the real state of facts, the Assistant Commissioner, Check Post, directed the release of the chassis without any security and also directed the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, to issue transit pass to the petitioner in form XXXIV. However, the Assistant Commissioner directed the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, to inform the Sales Tax Officer, S.I.B., Allahabad, to make a thorough enquiry into the matter at his end for the purpose of ascertaining whether the real importers of the chassis were Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. and to take appropriate action against them, if necessary. Pursuant to that direction, the Sales Tax Officer, Bhopura Check Post, made an endorsement on the transit pass issued by him on form XXXIV expressing his doubt as to the genuineness of the documents accompanying the chassis and requesting the Sales Tax Officer, S.I.B., Allahabad, to make an enquiry into the whole affair from Messrs. Prayag Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., who, according to the form, were the real importers.