2015 (9) TMI 166 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court sets aside Tribunal's seizure order due to lack of jurisdiction over transit declaration form

The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order for seizure and security. The Court held that authorities lacked jurisdiction to ... Seizure proceedings – Non-furnishing of transit declaration form – Whether proceedings of seizure and direction for furnishing security is within jurisdiction of respondents authorities since orders have been passed only on ground that during mobile search, document namely 'transit declaration form' was not found in possession of transporter – According to respondents, transporter was obliged to download form and communicate respondents authorities at time when he enters territory of State of Uttar Pradesh – Held that:- Said dispute has been settled finally in M/s Prakash Transport Corporation [2013 (12) TMI 921 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] – In said case it was held that Act does not specifically provide for seizure of goods for not carrying Transit Declaration Form – Therefore impugned order set aside on basis of said case – Decided in favour of Revisionist. Issues:Jurisdiction of authorities in seizure and security proceedings based on absence of transit declaration form.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the High Court pertains to a revision against an order passed by the Tribunal. The central issue for consideration was whether the seizure and direction for furnishing security by the authorities were within their jurisdiction. This question arose due to the absence of a 'transit declaration form' during a mobile search conducted on a transporter. The authorities contended that the transporter was required to download and communicate the form upon entering the territory of Uttar Pradesh.The Court referred to a previous judgment in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 776 of 2013, where it was conclusively held that the Act does not authorize the seizure of goods for not carrying the Transit Declaration Form. The Court explicitly stated that the order of seizure in such circumstances is without jurisdiction and cannot be upheld. It was acknowledged by both parties that this precedent had achieved finality and directly applied to the present case.In light of the established legal position from the previous judgment, the Court resolved the formulated question of law in favor of the revisionist. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Tribunal was set aside. This decision reaffirms the principle that the authorities cannot seize goods solely due to the absence of a transit declaration form, as it falls outside the scope of their jurisdiction as per the relevant legal provisions.