Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs S/S. Assam Bengal Roadways

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This revision has been filed by the revenue challenging an order passed by the learned Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur, whereby assessee''s appeal has been allowed and seized goods has been directed to be released.

It transpires from the records that assessee transported certain goods through transport vehicle bearing registration no. UP 78 CN 3188, which arrived at the entry check post in the State of U.P. on 6.10.2016. The vehicle had requisite papers and details of transit forms have been annexed. However, the authorities found that this very vehicle had previously entered the State on 12.8.2016 and there was no document available on record to demonstrate that this vehicle had exited the State thereafter, and in such circumstances, the authorities were of the opinion that previous transaction had not formalized and accordingly proceedings for seizure were undertaken. The assessee filed an appeal/representation stating that in respect of previous transaction, in case authorities found that due observations of law had not been followed, then it was open for the authorities to proceed against the transaction undertaken previously, but it could not be a ground to initiate proceedings for seizure against the present assessee, particularly when there was no allegation of violation of law at its hand. Representation was rejected, against which second appeal was preferred, which has been allowed by the tribunal. Tribunal has relied upon a decision of this Court in Seema Enterprises, Canal Avenue v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow: 2013 NTN (52) 237 in order to hold that even if the allegations are taken to be correct, then also doubts are raised upon legality of previous transaction and it was open for the authorities to proceed against it, but for such reasons, seizure order can be passed against the assessee.

Learned counsel for the State submits that authorities had a bona fide doubt with regard to genuineness of transaction, and therefore, order of seizure has been validly passed. It was open for the assessee to explain its stand and contest the matter at the stage when appropriate proceedings are drawn, and no interference is required at this stage of the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the adjudication in Seema Enterprises (supra), and as such, no interference is warranted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record.

From the materials placed, it appears that the only ground which led to suspicion being generated in the minds of the authorities in the order of seizure was that this transport vehicle had previously entered the State on 12.8.2016, but there was nothing on record to show that the vehicle had also exited. It was further found that there was some doubt with regard to genuineness of forms issued by the authorities at Delhi under Delhi VAT Act and it is for these reasons that the order of seizure has been passed.

So far as the question of transport vehicle having not exited the State after it had entered on 12.8.2016 is concerned, I find substance in the view taken by the tribunal that for such reasons, at best, proceedings could be drawn in respect of earlier transaction of transport of goods to the State, and for such reasons, the goods of the assessee were not liable to be seized. The issue in that regard stands settled by the decision in Seema Enterprises (supra). This Court has clearly held that for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under section 48 of the Act, each and every transaction has to be examined independently on its own merits, and past conduct is wholly irrelevant. That being the position, I am of the opinion that the tribunal has not committed any error in interfering with the order of seizure on the ground that previous transaction was not a material circumstance for the present case. So far as the genuineness of certificate issued by the authorities at Delhi is concerned, it is to be observed that such documents are not relevant for the present purposes. The circulars, which have been issued by the State, clearly specifies the documents which are required to be possessed by the assessee at the time when vehicle enters in State and there is no contemplation that VAT receipts of other States acknowledging payment of tax would have to be carried by the assessee.

In view of the above, this Court finds no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the tribunal. Revision accordingly fails and is consigned to records. The authorities shall proceed in accordance with law.