TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court modifies Tribunal's order on seized goods, directs release upon indemnity bond submission by registered dealer</h1> <h3>M/s Pushpa Trading Company, Etah Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow</h3> The High Court modified the Tribunal's order in a case concerning the seizure of goods, directing the release of seized goods upon submission of an ... Deposit of 10% of the estimated value of goods seized for release of goods - case of assessee is that assessee is a registered dealer and in case any liability is fixed, the same can be realized and there was no justification for the authorities to require the revisionist to deposit cash security - Held that: - It is not in dispute that revisionist is a registered dealer under U.P. VAT Act in the State, and in case any ultimate liability towards tax or penalty is imposed upon it, the same can always be realized - seized goods shall be released by the authorities, in case the revisionist submits an indemnity bond for the disputed amount in question - revision allowed - decided in favor of revisionist. Issues involved:1. Seizure of goods and requirement of deposit for releaseAnalysis:The revision pertains to challenging an order by the Tribunal directing the assessee to deposit 10% of the estimated value of seized goods for their release. The revisionist, a registered dealer, contended that the goods were being returned as the transaction could not materialize, supported by evidence of communication. The counsel argued that any liability could be realized, questioning the necessity of a cash security deposit. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel defended the seizure and the deposit requirement. The High Court observed that the revisionist being a registered dealer could address any imposed liabilities, and there was no evidence to suggest the goods were brought from outside the State, thus not attracting Section 50 provisions. The Court modified the Tribunal's order, directing the release of seized goods upon submission of an indemnity bond for the disputed amount, subject to final orders by the authorities. The revision was disposed of, emphasizing the need for authorities to assess issues comprehensively at the appropriate stage, allowing the revisionist to present defenses effectively.
TaxTMI 
