Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the applicants and Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision has been admitted on the following question of law:

“Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in directing for release of goods without security?”

Facts of the Case :

3. On 10.9.2016, PVC wire, Foam sheets, Copper wire, Plastic Tirpal, Milk Powder, Core PATRI and SOS Box, accompanied with eleven bilties of the respondent and certain invoices and TDF-1 No. D20160900087824 dated 7.9.2016 declaring these goods as “PARCHOON” being transported through truck bearing Registration No. UP53T6492 were intercepted on NH28 near Barwa Forest, Kushinagar, by the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Padrauna, Kushinagar. Total value of goods as per invoices accompanying the eleven bilties of the respondent was Rs. 10,84,500/-. In the invoices, addresses of the alleged consignees were mentioned merely as “Chhapra, Bihar”. However, in the bilties name of consignees were mentioned as “SELF”. Value of goods mentioned in the invoices ranged from Rs. 20,500/- to Rs. 3,73,000/-. In these invoices, TIN number of consignees are not mentioned although in several invoices, central sales tax has been shown below the price of goods. Weighment slip dated 7.9.2016 of Jai Dharm Kanta, 142, Prakash Industrial Estate, Ghaziabad was also found accompanying the goods. On inquiry the TIN numbers mentioned in each invoices were found to be fictitious. Consignors were found non-existent. Thus, invoices were found to be fake and bogus. In the paper sheet (manifest) of the respondent, the transportation of goods is shown from U.P.B. to Chhapra or Siwan. Respondent could not prove from who they received goods and to whom they shall deliver.

4. A show-cause notice dated 10.9.2016 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad Unit, Padrauna, Kushinagar to the respondent under Section 48 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for seizure of the goods. The respondents submitted a reply in which they have not mentioned even a word on the points of the show-cause notice but merely stated that the goods loaded in the truck is coming from outside the province. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad passed the seizure order dated 10.9.2016 under Section 48 of the Act seizing the goods and demanded cash security of Rs. 4,33,800/- being 40% of the value of goods, for release.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondents filed an application under the proviso to Section 48(7) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Zone-B, Gorakhpur which was rejected by order dated 28.9.2016. Aggrieved with this order, the respondents filed an Appeal No. 588 of 2016 under Section 56 of the Act before the Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Varanasi Bench, Varanasi which was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.1.2016. Aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow has filed the present revision.

Submissions :

6. Learned standing counsel supports the findings recorded in the seizure order dated 10.9.2016 and the order of the Joint Commissioner (SIB) dated 28.9.2016. He submits that facts of the case clearly shows that consignors are non-existent, the goods were loaded at Ghaziabad and the same were being transported under fake invoices in a fraudulent manner with intent to evade tax under the Act. He submits that the goods belong to some undisclosed non-bona fide dealers of Uttar Pradesh whose real identity has been consciously concealed by the respondents to evade tax. Seizure has been rightly made under Section 48 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the goods were being transported from outside the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P. and as such