TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns Tribunal's decision on goods seizure for undervaluation under tax law; market value at transaction place crucial.</h1> <h3>Mehndipur Balaji Impex (P) Ltd. Versus Mehndipur Balaji Impex (P) Ltd.</h3> The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision affirming the seizure of goods under Section 48 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act for undervaluation. It ... - Issues involved: Seizure of goods for undervaluation under different sections of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, correctness of seizure proceedings, burden of proof on revenue for undervaluation.Issue (a): The Tribunal affirmed seizure u/s 48 but authorities proceeded u/s 50. The High Court found that the value of seized goods was based on local market value, leading to the conclusion of undervaluation. The revisionist argued for valuation based on market rate at the place of purchase. Citing a precedent, it was held that the crucial value under Section 48 is the market value where the transaction occurred, not where the goods were detained. As the goods were transacted from Kerala and seized in Fatehpur, the Tribunal's conclusion of undervaluation was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the revision was allowed.Issue (b): Statutory authorization for seizing goods on grounds of undervaluation.The question arose whether officials can seize goods under Section 50 for undervaluation in Form 38 and tax invoice, despite lack of statutory authorization. The High Court's decision focused on the market value at the place of transaction, not seizure location, rendering the Tribunal's seizure affirmation incorrect.Issue (c): Correct description of goods in Form 38 for seizure proceedings.The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to describe goods correctly in Form 38, justifying seizure. However, the High Court found the Tribunal's findings on undervaluation to be flawed, leading to the setting aside of the proceedings.Issue (d): Validity of Tribunal's findings on undervaluation.The Tribunal's findings on undervaluation were deemed perverse and based on irrelevant considerations. The High Court concluded that the revenue failed to prove undervaluation, leading to the setting aside of the proceedings.Issue (e): Burden of proof on revenue for undervaluation.In assessing whether the revenue discharged its burden of proving undervaluation, the High Court found the Tribunal's conclusions to be erroneous. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the revision was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
