PRAKASH TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the dealer revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent -Department. The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order of seizure but permitting release of seized goods on furnishing security of 40 per cent of the estimated value of the goods under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the VAT Act") and of similar amount under the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Entry Tax Act") which has been reduced to 15 per cent, by the Commercial Tax Tribunal while upholding the seizure vide order dated September 26, 2013.

(2.) THE submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order of seizure has been passed basically for the reason that the goods were not accompanied by the transit declaration form. The transit declaration form was produced by the person in -charge of the vehicle in pursuance of the show -cause notice and therefore, for the technical default that it was not available at the time of checking/detention the seizure is not justified and the demand of security is illegal.

(3.) THE vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department of U.P. on the national highway at Naubatpur, U.P. A show -cause notice dated September 13, 2013 was issued as the goods were not accompanied by form 38/39 or the transit declaration form. In response to the show -cause notice the revisionist produced transit declaration form dated September 18, 2013 with full details relating to the transit of goods through the State of U.P. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax was not satisfied. He passed an order of seizure on September 21, 2013 and demanded security for the release of the goods separately under the VAT Act as well as the Entry Tax Act. The representation of the revisionist under section 48(7) of the VAT Act was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (S.I.B.) vide order dated September 25, 2013 in view of the circular dated September 3, 2013. In appeal to the Tribunal, the impugned order dated September 26, 2013 has been passed affirming the seizure order but reducing the security demanded.