Court overturns seizure order for paper rolls in transit, citing lack of evidence and improper documentation.

The Court set aside the seizure order of a consignment of paper rolls in transit from Haryana to Bihar via U.P., seized in Kanpur for alleged route deviation. Emphasizing the need for prescribed documents, the Court found the documents in order and the seizure unjustified. Lack of evidence regarding intended sale in U.P. and premature seizure led to ruling in favor of the revisionist, directing the goods' release. The Court highlighted the importance of legal provisions and documentation, ultimately allowing the revision and overturning the seizure.

---

---

Issues involved: Seizure of consignment in transit, deviation from disclosed route, presumption of goods meant for sale in U.P., validity of seizure order, authenticity of documents and information.

Summary:
The consignment of 18 rolls of paper, in transit from Haryana to Bihar via U.P., was seized in Kanpur for allegedly deviating from the disclosed route, raising suspicion of intended sale in U.P. The revisionist challenged the seizure under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, contending that the goods were accompanied by prescribed documents and there was no deviation. The respondent argued that the vehicle's presence in Kanpur's market area justified the presumption of intended sale in U.P. as per relevant provisions.

The Court analyzed Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and Rule 58, emphasizing the requirement of prescribed documents for goods passing through U.P. The Transit Declaration Form, accompanied by the goods, specified the route through U.P., including Kanpur. As the documents were in order, the seizure was deemed unjustified. The driver's uncontroverted affidavit confirmed the consignment's destination as Bihar, further supporting the revisionist's case.

Regarding the authenticity of information about the selling dealer in Haryana and the purchasing dealer in Bihar dealing in plastic goods, the Court noted the lack of substantiated evidence or inquiry, undermining the department's claims. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that seizure should occur only at the exit check post and goods cannot be seized prematurely.

Ultimately, considering the legal provisions, documentation, and lack of concrete evidence supporting the presumption of intended sale in U.P., the Court set aside the seizure order and directed the release of the goods. The revision was allowed, ruling in favor of the revisionist.

---