Transit declaration lapse can be rebutted by transport documents, making seizure and security demand unjustified for bona fide goods movement.

Absence of the Uttar Pradesh transit declaration form did not, by itself, justify seizure of raw rubber or insistence on security for release where the consignment was accompanied by Rubber Board and transport documents showing origin, transit and destination. The later filing of the transit declaration, together with contemporaneous commercial papers, was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption arising from non-production of that form. On those facts, the movement of goods was treated as bona fide, and continued detention of the consignment was held unjustified. The Tribunal's order was therefore unsustainable and release without security was directed on the material on record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seizure of goods and the direction to furnish security for release were justified for alleged breach of the transit declaration requirement under Section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. (ii) Whether the presumption under Section 52 stood rebutted on the facts and documents produced.

Issue (i): Whether the seizure of goods and the direction to furnish security for release were justified for alleged breach of the transit declaration requirement under Section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Analysis: The goods were raw rubber and their movement was governed by the Rubber Rules, 1955. At the time of interception, the goods were accompanied by several transport and commercial documents, including the Rubber Board declaration in Form N-2 and other supporting papers showing the origin, transit and destination of the consignment. The only defect was non-download of the Uttar Pradesh transit declaration form before entry into the State, and that form was subsequently filed before the authority. In these circumstances, the mere technical lapse did not justify continued seizure or insistence on security.

Conclusion: The seizure and the demand for security were not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under Section 52 stood rebutted on the facts and documents produced.

Analysis: The documents accompanying the consignment, read with the later submission of the transit declaration form, established the bona fide movement of goods from Tripura to Haryana. The Rubber Board declaration, transport documents and allied forms contained sufficient particulars of the consignor, transporter and consignee. The statutory presumption arising from non-availability of the transit declaration was therefore displaced by the material on record.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 52 stood rebutted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal could not be sustained and the goods were directed to be released without security, on the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory presumption arising from absence of a transit declaration can be rebutted by contemporaneous transport and commercial documents, and once rebutted, seizure of goods and insistence on security for release are unjustified.

---