TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... estimated by Mobile Squad, either in cash or bank guarantee, for releasing the goods. A further direction has been issued by the Tribunal that as and when evidence is adduced before the authorities to the effect that goods have actually crossed the State, the bank guarantee or the cash, as the case may be, shall be returned. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of these revisions are that the assessee herein is a registered transporter, who is operating from Delhi- U.P. Border at Chikambarpur in Ghaziabad. Certain grocery items are stated to have been received by the transporter from the consignor located in Delhi for being sent to the consignee located in the State of Bihar. The goods were loaded in U.P., and were being transported to Patna. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the value of goods. An appeal preferred against it was rejected. In second appeal, the Tribunal has modified the order, and a direction has been issued to release the goods upon deposit of 10% amount viz-a-viz estimated value of the goods. It is this order, which is the bone of contention between the parties. 3. Sri B.P. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, contends that materials existed on record to doubt genuineness, inasmuch as all supporting documents were prima facie found to be forged, and in such circumstances, the authorities were justified in insisting upon deposit of 40% amount, which is the amount that could be levied as penalty upon the assessee. It is also contended that dealer has not come forward, and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that there exists no pari materia provision in U.P. Value Added Tax Act, and therefore, the judgment is distinguishable. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon decisions of this Court, particularly in Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier, Gwalior Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2003 UPTC 1218, and in S/S Ranchi Carrying Corporation, Ranchi Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, passed in Revision No.59 of 2017, on 15.2.2017, in order to contend that the requirement to deposit amount or furnishing of bank guarantee is wholly unwarranted, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the materials brought on record. 6. From the materials placed, this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s would be the documents provided by assessee. As is the case herein, 26 out of these 27GR/invoices mentioned tin numbers, which were found to be forged. This would be a relevant circumstance for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether goods in fact had been sent from any place beyond the State of U.P. or not? In such circumstances, the interest of the parties would have to be protected, particularly as proceedings under Section 48 are likely to be initiated in the matter. It is found that goods were being transported pursuant to a TDF, and at the time when goods were seized, they were found to be en-route disclosed in the TDF, and time to exit State had not expired. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the Tribunal to release ....