Tax evasion findings sustained where transit documents masked a non-genuine transaction and seizure was upheld in revision.

Concurrent findings that the transaction was a device to evade tax justified seizure of goods and demand of security for release under the U.P. VAT Act. The Court accepted that the alleged purchaser was not shown to be a bona fide dealer, the transit declaration forms were used in a short period for substantial consignments, and the affidavits conflicted with the departmental record. On that factual basis, no legal infirmity was found in the seizure order or the security demand, and no question of law arose for interference in revision; the challenge therefore failed and the Revenue's action was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and demand of security for release under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were illegal on the ground that the goods were said to be supported by genuine transit documents and were not liable to seizure.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the alleged purchaser was not established as a bona fide dealer, the transit declaration forms were used in a short span for substantial consignments, and the affidavits filed by the applicant were inconsistent with the departmental record. The Court found that the authorities below had recorded concurrent findings that the transaction was a device to evade tax and that the applicant had suppressed true facts. In such circumstances, no infirmity was found in the seizure order or in the demand of security for release of the goods, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure and security demand failed. The finding of tax evasion was sustained and the revision was rejected in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld, and the proceedings ended with dismissal of the revision and confirmation of the action taken by the tax authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record supports a finding that transit documents and surrounding facts are being used to mask a non-genuine transaction and evade tax, the seizure and security demand under the VAT provisions will not be interfered with in revision absent any legal infirmity.

---