Seizure under trade tax law requires statutory grounds; mere document gaps or sale classification disputes do not justify interception.

Seizure of goods under section 13A(1A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was permissible only where the officer had reason to believe the goods were not traceable to a bona fide dealer or were not properly accounted for in the dealer's books and business records. As no finding showed the goods were unaccounted, and the books had not been shown to be absent or unproduced, the seizure lacked the statutory basis. A dispute whether the movement represented stock transfer or inter-State sale was a matter for assessment, not interception, and the mere absence of prescribed Mandi documents was insufficient to justify seizure. The seizure order was therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods under section 13A(1A) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable when the record did not show that the goods were not properly accounted for in the dealer's books of account and the seizure was founded mainly on absence of documents under the Mandi Adhiniyam and on a presumed inter-State sale.

Analysis: Section 13A(1A) empowers seizure only where the officer has reason to believe that the goods are not traceable to a bona fide dealer or that it is doubtful whether the goods are properly accounted for in the dealer's accounts, registers or other business documents. The material before the authority did not record any finding that the goods were not entered in the books of account or that the books had not been produced. The dispute whether the movement of goods was a stock transfer or an inter-State sale was held to be a matter for assessment and not a ground for seizure at the stage of interception. The absence of the prescribed Mandi documents, by itself, was held insufficient to justify seizure on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The seizure order was illegal and without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the seizure order was set aside, and release of the goods was directed forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods can be seized under section 13A(1A) only when the statutory preconditions are satisfied by a finding that they are not traceable to a bona fide dealer or are not properly accounted for in the dealer's business records; a mere inference of evasion or a dispute as to the nature of the transaction does not justify seizure.

---