https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264945 Concurrent findings that the transaction was a device to evade tax justified seizure of goods and demand of security for release under the U.P. VAT Act. The Court accepted that the alleged purchaser was not shown to be a bona fide dealer, the transit declaration forms were used in a short period for substantial consignments, and the affidavits conflicted with the departmental record. On that factual basis, no legal infirmity was found in the seizure order or the security demand, and no question of law arose for interference in revision; the challenge therefore failed and the Revenue's action was sustained. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:41:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264945 Concurrent findings that the transaction was a device to evade tax justified seizure of goods and demand of security for release under the U.P. VAT Act. The Court accepted that the alleged purchaser was not shown to be a bona fide dealer, the transit declaration forms were used in a short period for substantial consignments, and the affidavits conflicted with the departmental record. On that factual basis, no legal infirmity was found in the seizure order or the security demand, and no question of law arose for interference in revision; the challenge therefore failed and the Revenue's action was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264945