Transit seizure limits: goods cannot be seized for superior quality or an unregistered buyer absent lack of bona fides.

Goods in transit accompanied by the required documents could not be seized merely because the authority considered them to be of superior quality to the description in the papers, as such quality assessment is not a statutory ground for seizure. Seizure was also not supported by the fact that the purchasing dealer was unregistered, where the department did not dispute the genuineness or bona fides of the consignor or consignee. Applying the statutory framework, including Section 28-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the seizure order and consequential orders were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods in transit could be sustained on the grounds that the goods were of superior quality to that disclosed in the documents and that the purchasing dealer was not registered.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly in transit with the necessary documents and the disclosed route in the transit declaration form was not violated. A seizure cannot be justified on the basis that the seizing authority considers the goods to be of better quality, since such assessment is beyond the competence of the authority and is not a statutory ground for seizure. The other ground, namely that the purchasing dealer was unregistered, also did not support seizure because the department did not dispute the genuineness or bona fides of the consignor or consignee. The statutory context, including the principles applied under Section 28-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, did not permit seizure on these grounds.

Conclusion: The seizure order and the consequential orders were unsustainable and were set aside, and the revision was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---