Contemporaneous seizure material governs release of detained goods; later documents cannot displace a prima facie inference of sale intent.

Relief against seizure cannot be based on documents that were not in existence at the time of detention, particularly where the contemporaneous challan and the driver's statement indicated movement of the vehicle from Madhya Pradesh to Lalitpur. Later-produced invoice, insurance cover and temporary registration papers were treated as unreliable for assessing the nature of the transport. On the material available at seizure, the inference that the vehicle was being brought into Uttar Pradesh for sale and possible tax evasion remained intact, so the Tribunal's release of the vehicle without security was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing release of the detained vehicle without security by relying on documents produced later and in holding that the vehicle was not being brought into Uttar Pradesh for sale.

Analysis: The vehicle was detained on the basis of the challan and the driver's statement, both of which indicated that it had been taken from Madhya Pradesh to Lalitpur. At the time of seizure, no document other than the challan accompanied the vehicle. The invoice, insurance cover, temporary registration certificate, and related papers relied upon before the Tribunal were of a later date and were not in existence at the time of seizure. Those documents were therefore treated as unreliable for determining the true nature of the movement of goods. On the material available at seizure, the inference of import into Uttar Pradesh for sale and evasion of tax remained intact.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in releasing the vehicle without security. Its reliance on later documents was erroneous, and the finding that the vehicle was not being brought into Uttar Pradesh for sale was unsustainable. The answer to the question of law was against the dealer and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief against seizure cannot rest on documents that were not in existence at the time of detention, especially where contemporaneous material shows a prima facie intention to bring goods into the State for sale and evade tax.

---