Seizure under VAT law must rest on defects in the seized goods themselves, not unrelated past transaction discrepancies.

Seizure of goods under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is valid only when the authorised officer has reason to believe, from the seized goods and accompanying records, that the goods are unaccounted for, improperly documented, undervalued, or not traceable to a bona fide dealer. The reasoning cannot be extended to doubtful features in earlier transactions unless those matters relate to the seized consignments themselves. Where no finding is recorded on the statutory prerequisites for the seized goods, reliance on prior business discrepancies is impermissible and the seizure cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be sustained when no finding was recorded that the seized goods were unaccounted for, wrongly valued, or not traceable to a bona fide dealer, and the authorities relied instead on discrepancies relating to prior transactions.

Analysis: Section 48 permits seizure only where the authorised officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the seized goods themselves and the accompanying records, that the goods are not accounted for in the dealer's books, are not accompanied by proper documents, are undervalued, or are otherwise not traceable to a bona fide dealer. The record showed that the Tribunal expanded the enquiry beyond this limited statutory field and relied upon doubtful features noticed in earlier transactions, although those discrepancies were not shown to relate to the seized consignments. No finding was recorded that the seized goods themselves were not duly accounted for or that the statutory prerequisites for seizure existed. Such reliance on prior business conduct was impermissible for sustaining a seizure under the provision.

Conclusion: The seizure could not be upheld and was liable to be quashed; the revision succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Seizure under Section 48 must rest on statutory grounds pertaining to the seized goods themselves, and cannot be sustained by reference to unrelated discrepancies in earlier transactions.

---