Transport form requirements must match the notified commodity; non-production cannot justify seizure for stainless steel sheets.

Stainless steel sheets were held not to fall within the Form No. 49 requirement under section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act because the departmental circular confined that form to iron and steel as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the department's own treatment of the commodity showed separate classification. The article also states that, where section 8-A(5) applies and goods are not accompanied by the prescribed memo, the statutory presumption of non-accountal may support seizure under section 13-A. The practical effect was that the demand for Form No. 49 could not be sustained for stainless steel sheets, and seizure on that footing was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether stainless steel sheets were covered by the requirement of form No. 49 under section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether, for breach of section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the authorised officer could invoke the seizure power under section 13-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether stainless steel sheets were covered by the requirement of form No. 49 under section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The departmental circular dated 1 January 2003 confined the use of form No. 49 to iron and steel as defined under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and specifically clarified that iron goods were not to be covered. The department also conceded that the operation of section 8-A(5) had been restricted in practice to three identified commodities. Stainless steel sheets were separately treated for tax purposes under the department's own notifications and assessment history, and were not shown to fall within iron and steel under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Conclusion: Stainless steel sheets were not covered by the requirement of form No. 49, and the demand for such form was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether, for breach of section 8-A(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the authorised officer could invoke the seizure power under section 13-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 8-A(5) creates a statutory presumption that goods not accompanied by the prescribed memo have not been accounted for with a view to evade tax. Section 13-A empowers seizure of goods not accounted for in the dealer's books or documents maintained in the ordinary course of business. On that basis, where section 8-A(5) is applicable, the presumption can support action under section 13-A, and the Tribunal was wrong in holding otherwise.

Conclusion: The seizure power under section 13-A could be invoked in an appropriate case of breach of section 8-A(5).

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the goods were not liable to be accompanied by form No. 49, so the seizure and the impugned demand could not be sustained, and the dealer was entitled to release of the goods with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department itself confines a transport-form requirement to specified commodities by binding circular, the revenue cannot insist on that form for a different commodity or sustain seizure on the basis of non-production of the form.

---