Pankaj Mithal - The revisionist, M/s. RBBRL contractors, New Delhi and Shree Krishna Trading Company, Patna, has jointly filed Commercial Tax Revision No. 272 of 2011 challenging the seizure of goods under sections 50 and 52 of the U.P. Value Added 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-1 DB/6777. The owner/driver of the vehicle on entering U.P. at Ghaziabad downloaded the transit declaration form from the official website of the Commercial Tax Department, U.P. on February 1, 2011 with the date of exit from U.P. as February 5, 2011. The said transit declaration form clearly mentioned the entry point in U.P. to be Ghaziabad and Naubatpur as the exit point with two intervening prominent points.

The consignment of goods, however, was detained on February 2, 2011 at Kannauj whereupon, after service of show-cause notice and on consideration of reply, seizure order was passed on February 10, 2011.

The representation under section 48(7) of the Act against the seizure order was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (SIB) Commercial Tax, Etawah on February 22, 2011 against which second appeal was preferred before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur. The appeal was partly allowed and upholding the seizure, the goods were directed to be released on furnishing cash security of twice the amount of tax on the estimated value of the goods seized.

I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists in CTR No. 272 of 2011 and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Department.

The basic argument of Sri Agrawal is that no case for seizure of goods under sections 50 and 52 of the Act has been made out. Therefore, the authorities below including the Tribunal have erred jurisdictionally in upholding 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, 2011. Secondly, the bilty was made first and thereafter the invoice which is against the settled practice. Thirdly, there is discrepancy in the weight of the consignment. Lastly, the dealer was not registered for dealing in footwear. All these factors also lead the Department to believe that the goods are not actually sent outside U.P., rather are likely to be sold in U.P.

Section 52 of the Act relates to the goods passing through the State of U.P. It provides that the vehicle carrying goods from outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State of U.P., while passing through the State of U.P. shall carry such documents as may be prescribed, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods are meant for sale within the State of U.P.

Rule 58 of the R