Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the authorities could seize the petitioner's vehicle and demand security under section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the footing that its entry into the State without the prescribed declaration attracted section 28-A, when the vehicle was not goods liable to tax.
Analysis: The vehicle had been purchased outside the State and was brought into Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was being used for business purposes did not make it taxable, because the relevant tax under the notification was payable at the point of sale by a dealer to a consumer. Section 28-A concerned import of goods liable to tax in specified circumstances, and a vehicle of this kind, whether for personal use or commercial use, did not fall within that taxable category. Since the petitioner could not be treated as a dealer liable to pay tax on the vehicle, the foundation for invoking section 13-A or proceeding for contravention of section 28-A was absent.
Conclusion: The seizure and security demand were without authority of law and were quashed. The vehicle was directed to be released forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi: A vehicle brought into the State is not liable to seizure or security demand under the import-control provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act unless it is goods liable to tax and the person concerned is shown to be a dealer or otherwise tax-liable in respect of it.