Form 31 omission alone cannot justify seizure unless there is material showing an attempt to evade tax.

Mere absence of Form 31 during transit does not by itself justify seizure or demand for security under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Rules. The decisive requirement is that the omission must be accompanied by material showing an attempt to evade tax; absent such material, detention cannot continue mechanically. On the stated facts, the goods were covered by an issued Form 31, the omission was treated as inadvertent, and continued insistence on further security was not warranted. The goods were therefore to be released forthwith, while any penalty proceedings could proceed separately.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods transported without Form 31 could be seized and security demanded when the circumstances did not indicate an attempt to evade payment of tax, and whether the seized goods were liable to be released without insisting on further security.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 28-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and rule 83(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules requires the prescribed declaration and accompanying documents to be carried with the goods. At the same time, the power to seize is not meant to operate mechanically on mere absence of Form 31. The decisive consideration is whether, on the facts, the transportation was in an attempt to evade tax. The Court applied the settled view that both conditions must coexist: absence of the required document and material indicating an intention to evade tax. On the facts, the goods were covered by an issued Form 31, the omission was treated as inadvertent, and the existing circumstances did not justify continued detention of the goods or insistence on further security after the amount directed had already been substantially secured and complied with in part.

Conclusion: The seizure was not sustained as a matter requiring continued detention, and the goods were directed to be released forthwith without any further demand of security, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the detained goods were ordered to be released, while the penalty proceedings were left to be dealt with independently by the trade tax ities.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-accompaniment of goods by Form 31 does not by itself justify seizure or insistence on security unless there is material showing an attempt to evade tax.

---