COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX Vs. ADANI WILMORE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 18th June, 2005 relating to the assessment year. 2005-2006 arising from the seizure proceeding under Section 13-A(6) of the Act.

(2.) At the Bharauli check post, four vehicles bearing Nos. U.P.-61 A/0795. U.P.-65-A/1291, U.P.-66D/9055 and UCU-282 were detained on 12th May. 2005. In all the vehicles refined oil were found loaded. It was found that the vehicles were coming from Varanasi Railway Station and were going to Patna and along with the goods, no documents relating to Central Sales Tax were found. Subsequently, vide order dated 1.8.5.2005, the goods were seized. The check post authority has valued the goods at Rs. 12, 99, 000/- and demanded the security at Rs. 3. 89, 591/in cash for the release of the goods. The opposite party filed an application under the proviso to Section 13-A(6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Trade Tax, Azamgarh Range, Ballia. The Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) vide order dated 21.5.2005 rejected the application. It appears that the opposite party has furnished the security as demanded by the check post officer and got the goods released on 22.5.2005. However, after the release of the goods, opposite party filed appeal before the Tribunal. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) passed under Section 13-A(6) of the Act, Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal. Tribunal has quashed the seizure of the goods and has discharged the security furnished by the opposite party and directed the refund of the security. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal Commissioner of Trade Tax filed the present revision.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the entertainment of the appeal by the Tribunal and decision on merit, quashing the seizure of the goods and direction to return the security, after furnishing of security and the release of the goods is absolutely illegal and bad in law. He submitted that under Section 13-A(6) of the Act, security is being demanded to cover the penalty likely to be imposed and on the deposit of such security, goods so seized may be released. Thus, the proceeding under Section 13-A(6) of the Act is of a summary nature and once the goods is released, proceeding under Section 13-A(6) of the Act stand concluded and the proviso to Section 13-A(6) of the Act stand complied with. In the circumstances, the appeal under Section 10(2) of the Act is not maintainable inasmuch as the person concerned ceases to be an aggrieved person to the direction under the proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 13-A of the Act. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Brajraj Dori Niwar Co. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 2001 UPTC 291.