2014 (4) TMI 878 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court allows amendment application without State reply, clarifies UP VAT Act on goods release.

The High Court allowed the amendment application without requiring a reply from the State respondents, showing leniency. The judgment clarified provisions ... Permission for further transshipment – Representation capacity of transporter - Whether the transporter is person aggrieved and is entitled to release of goods, which have been detained and seized and can file representation and appeals against the orders – Held that:- Section 48(7) does not only refer to dealer, it also refers to the person in-charge of the vehicle and that would include a driver or transporter as well - Section 52 of the Act also uses the same words, namely the person in-charge of the vehicle to carry such documents as may be prescribed failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried thereby are meant for sale within the State – Section 55 (1) (15) (iv) provides for penalty at 40% of the value of the goods on a person being a transporter or hirer of a vehicle, who prepares a goods receipt by showing false destination of goods outside the State. A transporter may carry the goods of several dealers and may be from States other than the neighbouring States, which may be far away in destination from the State of UP - It will be extremely unjust for owner of the goods to apply for release of the goods in the State of UP - The Legislature has used the words 'any person aggrieved' and which would include the driver or the transporter of the vehicle - No need to go into the merit of the seizure inasmuch we find that the petitioner has a right to make a representation under the proviso to 47(7) for release of the goods, which have been seized by the respondents and if he is still aggrieved to file an appeal u/s 57 in Tribunal - The amendment application is allowed - In view of the order proposed to be passed, no reply is required to be given by the State respondents to the amended paragraphs – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Amendment application allowed without requiring a reply from State respondents.2. Interpretation of provisions under the UP Value Added Tax Act regarding detention and release of goods by transporters.3. Alternative remedies available to petitioners for filing representation and appeal against seizure orders.4. Consideration of transporter's rights to apply for release of goods and file appeals.5. Application of Sections 23(2) and 39(1) of the Sales of Goods Act in the context of delivery to carriers.6. Dismissal of all writ petitions challenging seizure and detention of goods.Analysis:1. The High Court allowed the amendment application without necessitating a reply from the State respondents, indicating procedural leniency towards petitioners.2. The judgment delved into the provisions of the UP Value Added Tax Act concerning the detention and release of goods by transporters, emphasizing the need for proper representation and appeal mechanisms.3. Petitioners were informed about their alternative remedies under the Act, specifically highlighting the process for filing representations under Section 48(7) and subsequent appeals under Section 57.4. The Court extensively discussed the rights of transporters to seek the release of detained goods and file appeals, referencing past judgments to support the inclusion of transporters as 'persons aggrieved' under relevant sections of the Act.5. Sections 23(2) and 39(1) of the Sales of Goods Act were cited to explain the legal implications of delivery to carriers, providing a framework for understanding the delivery obligations and presumptions in such transactions.6. Ultimately, all writ petitions challenging the seizure and detention of goods were dismissed by the Court, indicating a definitive conclusion to the legal dispute and upholding the application of relevant statutory provisions and case law in the matter.