UTSAV OIL TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 27, 2009 for the assessment year 2008 -09 relating to the seizure of the goods. The applicant claims to be a registered dealer. The applicant claimed that goods were sold to one M/s. Shri Ram Oil Trading Company, Darashi No. 3, Agra, against invoice No. 02/071 dated March 20, 2009. While the goods were in transit at Mathura it was intercepted by the Mobil Squad, Mathura. The driver of the vehicle has produced the invoice. However, no bilty was produced. It is the case of the Commercial Tax Officer that they have received certain informations that the goods were coming from Delhi and on the basis of the said information, the vehicle was checked. In the absence of the bilty, a doubt has been raised that the goods were coming from Delhi and not from NOIDA. The statement of the driver appears to have been recorded in which he has stated that the goods were coming from Delhi. On these discrepancies, a show -cause notice was issued to the applicant. It appears that the applicant has not produced the books of account for verification about the entry of invoice which was found along with the goods. Meanwhile, other various materials have also been collected by the Commercial Tax Officer regarding other activities of the applicant and on the basis of those materials, the seizure order was passed, seizing the goods. For the release of the goods, the value of the goods were estimated at Rs. 5,49,984 and 40 per cent of the value of the goods was demanded towards security. The applicant filed a representation under Section 48(7) of the Act which was allowed in part. The Joint Commissioner (SIB) upheld the seizure but has reduced the value of the goods to Rs. 4,74,984 and demanded security at three times of the tax which comes to 37.5 per cent. The amount of security, therefore, comes to Rs. 1,78,119.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner (SIB), the applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant though submitted that the inference drawn by all the authorities that the goods were coming from Delhi is wholly unjustified. He submitted that various documents which were produced before the authorities below establish that the goods have been loaded from NOIDA and not from Delhi. He further submitted that the estimate of the value of the goods and demand of the security at three times of the tax is not justified. He submitted that the circular issued by the Commissioner clearly states that if the movement of the goods are within the State of U.P. by a registered dealer the security should not be more than two times of the tax.