Court revises order on goods release, requires double tax deposit & security, deems cash demand excessive.

The Court partially allowed the revision, modifying the Tribunal's order to release the goods upon depositing double the tax amount and providing security in a non-cash form or bank guarantee for the remaining sum. The Court found a prima facie case for seizure but deemed the cash security demand excessive, addressing this issue while upholding the seizure decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods during transit.
2. Discrepancies in the origin of goods.
3. Assessment of value and security demanded for release of goods.
4. Appeal against the order of seizure.

Analysis:
1. The revision pertains to the Tribunal's order concerning the seizure of goods during transit for the assessment year 2008-09. The applicant, a registered dealer, claimed the goods were sold to a specific company. However, the goods were intercepted by the Mobil Squad in Mathura, leading to doubts about the origin as per information received by the Commercial Tax Officer. A show-cause notice was issued due to discrepancies, and the applicant failed to produce necessary documents for verification, resulting in the seizure of goods.

2. The Commercial Tax Officer passed a seizure order based on collected materials and discrepancies, estimating the value of goods and demanding security for release. The Joint Commissioner upheld the seizure but reduced the value of goods and adjusted the security amount. The applicant, dissatisfied with the order, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was subsequently dismissed.

3. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel argued against the inference that the goods originated from Delhi, presenting documents indicating NOIDA as the loading point. Additionally, the counsel contested the valuation of goods and the security demand, citing a circular limiting security for intrastate movement by registered dealers. The standing counsel justified the seizure due to the absence of the bilty and lack of document production during the show-cause notice.

4. Upon reviewing the orders and submissions, the Court found a prima facie case for seizure but deemed the cash security demand excessive. The Tribunal's order was modified to release the goods upon depositing two times the tax and providing security in a non-cash form or bank guarantee for the remaining amount. Consequently, the revision was partially allowed, addressing the excessive security demand while upholding the seizure decision.

---