TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether seizure of goods in transit was lawful when the vehicle carried the prescribed transit documents and was found in a city mentioned in the transit declaration form; (ii) Whether the seizure could be justified on the ground that the consignor and consignee were not genuine.
Issue (i): Whether seizure of goods in transit was lawful when the vehicle carried the prescribed transit documents and was found in a city mentioned in the transit declaration form.
Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted seizure of goods only under the provision dealing with seizure, while the provision relating to transit through the State created only a presumption of sale within the State if the prescribed documents were not carried. The vehicle in question was accompanied by the necessary transit declaration form and no defect was found in it. The fact that the vehicle was found in Kanpur did not establish deviation from the disclosed route, because Kanpur itself was one of the places mentioned in the declaration and the form did not require disclosure of the exact road to be taken within the city. Mere presence in the disclosed city, therefore, did not attract the presumption that the goods were meant for sale in the State.
Conclusion: The seizure on the ground of route deviation was illegal and unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the seizure could be justified on the ground that the consignor and consignee were not genuine.
Analysis: The authorities relied on an alleged telephonic enquiry and on the view that the dealer did not appear genuine, but no affidavit or proved material supported that assertion. The purchasing dealer had appeared before the authorities and had produced the Bihar import declaration. In a transit seizure matter, the genuineness or registration status of the consignor and consignee is not by itself relevant for seizure unless the statute so provides. On the record, the finding that the dealers were non-existent could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The seizure could not be upheld on the ground that the dealers were not genuine.
Final Conclusion: The impugned seizure and the consequential orders were set aside, and release of the goods was directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods in transit can be seized only on the basis of statutory grounds expressly authorising seizure, and not merely because the vehicle is found in a disclosed city or because the consignor or consignee is alleged to be non-genuine without proved material; a transit declaration containing the prescribed particulars defeats the presumption of local sale unless its breach is established.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
