https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164479 Goods in transit through Uttar Pradesh could not be seized merely because of discrepancies in transit documents or physical verification. The HC applied section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and Rule 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 to hold that interception and verification are permissible, but an adverse presumption of local sale requires material showing actual diversion, unloading in the State, or conduct indicating evasion. In the absence of such evidence, seizure on suspicion was arbitrary, and limiting relief to reduction of security was erroneous. The transit goods were ordered to be released forthwith without security. en-us Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164479 Goods in transit through Uttar Pradesh could not be seized merely because of discrepancies in transit documents or physical verification. The HC applied section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and Rule 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 to hold that interception and verification are permissible, but an adverse presumption of local sale requires material showing actual diversion, unloading in the State, or conduct indicating evasion. In the absence of such evidence, seizure on suspicion was arbitrary, and limiting relief to reduction of security was erroneous. The transit goods were ordered to be released forthwith without security. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164479