Transit pass seizure must match actual consignment; mere description mismatch and handwritten bill were insufficient grounds.

Seizure of goods and refusal to issue a transit pass under section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act were held unjustified where the transit pass application matched the verified consignment and the only discrepancy was in description, not quantity. Section 28B was treated as a machinery provision to prevent tax evasion, with the presumption of intra-State sale arising only on failure to surrender the transit pass at the exit check-post. The handwritten nature of the bill was held irrelevant without expert support, and the registered status of both consignor and consignee further showed that seizure was unwarranted. The seizure and denial of transit pass were held arbitrary and illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and refusal to issue a transit pass under section 28B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was justified on the allegation of undeclared goods and a doubtful bill.

Analysis: Section 28B is a machinery provision enacted to prevent evasion of tax by requiring transit pass authorisation and surrender at the exit check-post. The presumption of sale inside the State arises only when the transit pass is not surrendered at the exit check-post. On the facts, the goods were covered by the bill and the transit pass application was for 225 bags of scrap, which matched the physical verification. The alleged 32 bags of aluminium scrap were treated as part of the same consignment, and the discrepancy was only in description, not quantity. The objection based on the bill being handwritten was found to be irrelevant and unsupported by any expert opinion. The registration of both consignor and consignee under the relevant sales tax laws further showed that the seizure was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The seizure and denial of transit pass were arbitrary and illegal, and the revision failed.

---