GODAWARI STEELS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six revision petitions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 are directed against a common order dated July 28, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad whereby it dismissed the dealer's appeal Nos. 273, 274, 275, 276, 277 and 278 of 1999 and upheld the seizure of goods and the demand of security under Section 13-A(6) of the Act.

(2.) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The facts are that on June 20, 1999, six trucks loaded with C.R. coils were parked near Mahavir Dharam Kanta and Pooja Cane Crusher Service on the U.P. border. The Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Unit-A, Ghaziabad arrived there and on enquiry found that the driver/person-in-charge of the vehicles had no papers whatsoever in respect of the goods. The goods were detained and show cause notices were issued to the respective drivers to show cause by June 25, 1999 why the goods be not seized. Thereafter on June 25, 1999 Gajendra Pal Sharma claiming to be the proprietor of Godawari Steels (the revisionist) filed objection. His contention was that it was on the 5th June, 1999 that he placed orders for these goods on three parties of Delhi, namely, Aggarwal Tubes Syndicate, M.C. Steels and Lakshmi Steels all of Loha Mandi, Naraina. The orders were oral and were communicated on telephone. On June 7, 1999 his father died and he became busy in performing his last rites. The teharvin was held on June 18, 1999 and he returned to Ghaziabad on June 19, 1999. It was in these circumstances that he could not send form XXXI to the selling dealers. However, since the orders had been placed long back the aforesaid dealers despatched the goods on June 19, 1999 and the six trucks containing the goods arrived at the U.P. border. The representative of the sellers along with the bills, challans, etc., issued by the aforesaid parties came to contact Gajendra Pal Sharma. He told him of the aforesaid circumstances and that he had not been able to obtain form XXXI from the trade tax office and that the parties to whom he had supplied these goods were also not willing to accept the goods. It was also stated in the reply that under a prevailing procedure the goods can be released on the red channel of the check-post on deposit of 1.5 times of the tax. He stated in his objection that there was no intention to evade tax and the goods have been consigned by a bona fide dealer to a bonafide dealer.