Seizure of goods for different inks in Form-21 was unjustified where transport documents were otherwise complete and supported.

Seizure of transported goods cannot be justified merely because Form-21 entries were written in different inks or might fade, where the required documents were otherwise complete and supported by G.R. and weigh slips. The text explains that Section 48 and Rule 55 permit seizure for false, incorrect or incomplete documents, but they do not prescribe any particular ink requirement. It further notes that, if authorities feared alteration, they could have copied and countersigned the form. On that basis, the Tribunal's affirmation of seizure was treated as erroneous and the goods were regarded as not liable to seizure on the ink issue alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods in transit could be seized merely because the transport memo in Form 21 was filled with different pens and some entries were likely to fade, despite the documents otherwise being complete and supported by accompanying records.

Analysis: The seizure provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and the relevant Rules permit seizure where goods are not properly accounted for or where accompanying documents are false, bogus, incorrect, incomplete, or do not cover the consignment. The transport memo in Form 21 was not shown to be absent or incomplete, and the Act and Rules did not prescribe any particular type of ink or the manner in which the form had to be filled. The alleged defect was only that some entries were made in fading ink and by separate pens. The transport memo was also corroborated by other contemporaneous documents such as the G.R., weigh slip, and register entries, and the proper course, if required, was to secure the form by copying and countersigning it, not to seize the goods.

Conclusion: The seizure was unjustified and the goods were not liable to be seized on the basis of the alleged ink-related defect in Form 21.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the seizure and appellate orders were set aside, and release of the goods was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods in transit cannot be seized merely for a technical defect in the ink or manner of filling the prescribed transport memo when the required documents accompany the consignment and the alleged defect does not show falsehood, incompleteness, or non-accountal of goods.

---