TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether seizure of goods in transit was justified when the driver carried the invoice, goods receipt and transit declaration form and the stipulated transit period had not expired, and whether past conduct or earlier transactions could be relied upon to sustain detention and seizure.
Analysis: Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and Rule 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 create only a rebuttable presumption of sale within the State if the prescribed documents are not carried or the prescribed procedure is violated. The documents accompanying the goods were produced at the time of interception, and there was no finding that the transit declaration form was bogus, incomplete or incorrect. The goods were detained before the expiry of the time mentioned in the transit declaration form. In such circumstances, the mere possibility of local unloading could not justify seizure. The past history of the transporter and alleged inconsistencies in earlier consignments were held to be irrelevant to the present transaction, and suspicion or conjecture could not substitute for material showing violation of the Act, the Rules or the circular.
Conclusion: Seizure was not justified. The detention order and the appellate order affirming seizure were set aside, and the goods were directed to be released without security.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods in transit are accompanied by the prescribed documents and the transit period has not expired, seizure cannot rest on mere suspicion or on the transporter's past conduct; a lawful seizure requires material showing violation of the statutory transit requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
