2011 (4) TMI 1262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10 while coming inside State of U.P., from Madhya Pradesh. A show-cause notice was issued to the dealer and a seizure order was passed on December 26, 2010. The representation of the dealer under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act (in short, "the Act") was rejected vide order dated January 1, 2011 which has been set aside in second appeal by the Tribunal. In filing the present revision the Revenue has raised the following question of law for consideration: "(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in releasing the goods without depositing any amount of security overlooking the relevant dates of Madhya Pradesh Transport Department in form 6 as well as the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i in rejecting the representation of the dealer noted submissions and in respect of photostat copies of some of the documents including invoice, form 21, insurance cover and temporary registration certificate of the vehicle, produced subsequently held that they are of no significance as all of them happened to be of December 20, 2010 and were not in existence either on December 18, 2010 or December 19, 2010 when the vehicle was seized. The Tribunal relying upon the photostat copies of the aforesaid documents which were produced at the time of consideration of representation under section 48(7) of the Act, came to the conclusion that the vehicle was having a temporary registration in the name of Arvind Kumar of Lalitpur and his name also ....