LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-103

ROHIT ROADLINES Vs. COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

Decided On November 24, 2004
ROHIT ROADLINES Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 8.11.2004 arising from the seizure proceeding under Section 13-A.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a Transporter and booked 300 bags of Big Cardamom for transportation from Siliguri to Amritsar. The goods were despatched by M/S P. K. Agrawal Siongtam M. Bazar, Sikkim to M/S Shivam Ditta Mal & Company, Amritsar, Punjab. The goods were sold by M/S P. K. Agarawal, Sikkim against 3 invoices nos. 63, 64 both dated 8.9.2004 and 65 dated 9.9.2004 each for 100 bags weighing 5000 Kg. In respect of 3 invoices, 3 builties nos. 35, 36 dated 8.8.2004 and 37 dated 9.9.2004 were prepared for 100 bags each. A manifest despatch No. RR/139 dated 11.9.2004 was also prepared by the transporter for movement of goods from Siliguri to Amritsar through Vehicle no. HR-38-D/3617 and in respect of the aforesaid 300 bags, driver of the Vehicle obtained Transit Pass no. 1198 dated 14.9.2004 from Tamkuhiraj Check Post as required under Section 28-B of the Act. Transit Pass which is Annexure-4 had to be surrendered at Sarsawa Check Post by 21.9.2004. It appears that the alleged goods have been found unloaded at Kanpur. On the information being received by the Trade Tax Officials, Kanpur on 16.9.2004 that 300 bags were found unloaded at the premises of M/S Prem Roadways T. P. Nagar, Kanpur, an inspection was made by T. T. O., Mobile Squad, Kanpur. The said goods were taken away to the Trade Tax Office and were subsequently seized on the allegation that the goods were unloaded at the Godown with an intent to sell inside the State of U.P. and a seizure order was passed on 17.9.2004 seizing the entire 300 bags. The seizure order is at Annexure 6. The said goods was subsequently released on furnishing of security at Rs. 7,60,000/- in the form of Bank guarantee on 28.9.2004. The release order is Annexure-3. Applicant explained that the goods were unloaded because they have received information that the driver of Truck may likely appropriate the goods before Amritsar. It is contended that the information about the unloading of goods at Kanpur was verbally given to Asstt. Commissioner (Enforcement), Kanpur and by Telegram on 16.9.2004 to Addl. Commissioner. A copy of telegram information and postal receipt no. 470 dated 16.9.2004 are enclosed as Annexure-5. After release of the said goods on 28.9.2004 at 3.30 , it appears that the same goods were again loaded in the same Vehicle no. HR-38-D/7617 and proceeded to Amritsar. When the Vehicle reached at Sarsawa Check Post on 30.9.20094, the Driver of the Vehicle submitted the said Form 34 for necessary endorsement which was refused and a Show-cause-notice was issued on 30.9.2004 which is Annexure-14 to the revision on the ground that .300 bags of Big Cardamom was unloaded at Kanpur which was seized and subsequently released on furnishing of security and M/S Shivam Ditta Mal & Company, Amritsar, Punjab has refused to purchase in writing and without any declaration of transfer, (Patta) at the Entry Check Post, goods in Vehicle were unloaded at Kanpur and as per the statement given by the Driver freight was settled from Siliguri to Kanpur and on this basis, it was inferred that 300 bags of Big Cardamom was obtained from unknown persons without any bill, challan and builty etc. for delivery to unknown Ex-U.P. dealer with a view to evade central sales tax. Applicant filed reply which was not accepted and the seizure order was passed on 2.10.2004 estimating the value of goods at Rs. 20,00,000/- and demanded security of Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash for the release of goods. Application under the proviso of Section 13-A was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) vide order dated 14.10.2004. Applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed in part. Tribunal affirmed the seizure of goods but reduced the demand of security to 15% of the value of goods.

(3.) Heard Counsel for the parties.