ROADWAYS INDIA JALPAIGURI WEST BENGAL Vs. COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX HELP CENTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist is a transporter. It is alleged that certain goods belonging to Royal Government of Bhutan were being transported by the revisionist vide Truck No. HR-38K 2982. The consignment copy of the transporter, commercial invoice and an export declaration form accompanied the said consignment amongst other documents. The aforesaid vehicle entered into the State of U.P. at Entry Check-Post Samkudiraj, district Padrauna on 1.2.2006. At the Entry Check-Post transit pass in triplicate, as required under Section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was prepared by the Entry Check-Post Authority. The description of the goods was mentioned as copper wire. The aforesaid consignment reached the exit check-post within the State of U.P. at Transport Nagar, Ghaziabad. At the exit check-post, the Assistant Commissioner, Help Centre Incharge, Transport Nagar, Ghaziabad after going through the records accompanying the consignment and on verification of the goods, on the vehicle in question, came to a reasonable satisfaction that goods were not as per the description as disclosed in transit pass and other documents. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 13A(1a) of the Trade Tax Act passed an order of seizure dated 5.2.2006. Thereafter notices were issued to revisionist and ultimately an order under Section 13-A(6), requiring the transporter to deposit a sum of Rs. 26 lacs and odds for the purposes of release of goods, was passed.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. The transporter filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Trade Tax Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad. The appeal has been numbered as Appeal No. 79 of 2006. By means of the order impugned in the present revision, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal and has directed that on deposit of a sum of Rs. 6 lacs, which according to the revisionist represents 10% of the value of the goods covered by the consignment, the same be released. It is against this order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, the present revision has been filed under Section 11 of the Trade Tax Act.

(3.) Counsel for the revisionist submits that there may be same discrepancies in the description of the goods as mentioned in the transit pass issued in the entry check-post viz-a-viz the description mentioned in the other documents accompanying with the consignment. It is submitted that an order of seizure under Section 13-A (1A) cannot be issued on mere presumption. In support of the contention so raised, counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2005 NTN (Vol 28) 198; M/s Murliwala Agrotech Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow and 2005 UPTC 445; Rohit Road Lines v. Commissioner, Trade Tax.