Transit goods without required documents justified security demand where records indicated prima facie tax evasion.

Goods intercepted in transit without the requisite import documents and declaration forms could attract a security demand for release under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, including Section 50(1). On the material before the Tribunal, the absence of statutory paperwork and the apparent later production of the tax invoice and G.R. supported a prima facie inference of tax evasion. The Allahabad HC found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's view and declined interference, leaving the security order sustained in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining a cash security demand for release of goods intercepted in transit on the ground that the goods were being transported without requisite documents and in breach of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.

Analysis: The goods were found to have been transported from Jodhpur without the required import documents, including the prescribed declaration forms, and the record supported a prima facie inference that the tax invoice and G.R. had been handed over later to cover up the transaction. On the evidence considered by the Tribunal, the movement of goods from outside the State without compliance with the statutory requirements attracted the provisions of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, including Section 50(1). The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusion that the transaction disclosed prima facie evasion and that security could be demanded for release of the goods.

Conclusion: The revision was held to be without merit and the security order was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the seizure-related security demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are intercepted in transit without the requisite statutory documents and the material on record supports a prima facie inference of attempted tax evasion, the authority may insist on security for release of the goods and the revisional court will not interfere absent legal infirmity.

---