Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention and seizure of goods under Section 48 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were sustainable when the goods were accompanied by the relevant transport documents and the record did not show that the goods were unaccounted for or not traceable to a bona fide dealer.
Analysis: The detention and seizure power under Section 48(2) can be exercised only where the officer has reasons to believe that the goods are not traceable to a bona fide dealer or that it is doubtful whether the goods are properly accounted for in the dealer's books or documents. The record showed that the consignment was supported by the prescribed transfer challan, statutory transport form, Mandi gate pass, 9R and goods receipt, and the entries in the documents did not disclose any material discrepancy. The inference that the goods were different, or that purchases from several sellers in a day made the transaction doubtful, was found to rest on incorrect reading of the documents and on conjectures rather than on legally relevant material. The assessment order also recorded that the goods dispatched were the same goods, reinforcing that the seizure action was unsupported by the statutory conditions.
Conclusion: The detention and seizure were held unsustainable and the writ petition was allowed by quashing the impugned detention memo, notice and seizure order.