TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dded Tax Act. The Revenue has filed Commercial Tax Revision No. 272 of 2011 in connection with the above seizure challenging the order of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2011 directing for release of goods on deposit of twice the tax leviable on the goods so seized. Since both the revisions relate to the same transaction of seizure they have been taken together. Counsel for the parties also agreed for their disposal together on the merits at the very outset. M/s. RBBRL contractor is a transporter whereas M/s. Shree Krishna Trading Company is a registered dealer of Bihar under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act. A consignment of 208 packets of footwear was said to be in transit from Delhi to Patna by means of a truck, registration No.BL-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pholding the seizure. He has further argued that no seizure could be made on the mere presumption that the goods in transit are likely to be sold in U. P. His further contention is that the goods were duly accompanied by all the necessary documents and there is no infringement either of section 52 of the Act or rule 58 of the Rules. On the other hand, the submission of Sri Pandey is that the vehicle in question had previously downloaded transit declaration form on January 4, 2011, January 15, 2011 and January 25, 2011. Therefore, it was not possible for the said vehicle to have carried the goods from Delhi to Patna again when earlier it had travelled from Delhi to Patna and had passed through U. P. between January 25, 2011 and January 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Departments' website comtax.up. nic.in. This transit declaration form would be in addition to the relevant documents such as bill, bilty, etc., and that it will contain the route from which the vehicle would pass giving the entry and exit points and a minimum of two other important points from which it is likely to pass in U. P. Thus, it is only if the goods passing through the State of U. P. are not accompanied by the documents prescribed that a presumption of sale within the State would arise and not otherwise. Section 48 of the Act empowers the authorities to seize the goods. The seizure can be made if the goods are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts, registers and other documents maintained in ordinary course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. v. New Golden Transport Company [2010] 44 NTN 245 wherein it has been laid down that the goods cannot be seized before the expiry of time of exit declared in the transit declaration form. In the case of Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Yusuf, Jhansi through S. S. Raja Trading Company [2010] 43 NTN 342 it has been held that where the goods are accompanied by all the documents the same cannot be seized unless there is a positive or constrictive evidence to prove that the goods were loaded from a place inside U. P. The corollary of the above is that the seizure cannot be made until and unless there is a positive evidence to show that the goods while on transit through U. P. are loaded from U. P. or are unloaded in U. P. to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods cannot be seized unless there is a good ground for seizure as per the provisions of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the seizure of the goods is ex facie in contravention of the Act and the authorities have erred in upholding the seizure. Sri Pandey at this stage, argued that once the seizure has been upheld up to the Tribunal the revisional court may not be justified in interfering with the order. True it is that the revisional jurisdiction is quite limited and may not be exercised for interfering with the finding of fact but in the present case it is not the finding recorded by the authorities below which is wrong, rather it is the jurisdictional error committed by the authorities in seizing the goo....