Mahendra Radio and Television Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax

R.R. Misra, J.—This revision has been filed against an order dated 23rd December, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal upholding the demand of security u/s 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Nobody appears for the assessee. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., has been heard.

The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a manufacturer of T.V. sets carrying on its business at Ghaziabad and has its branch office at Delhi also. On 10th April, 1986 the branch manager was found bringing 9 testing instruments from Delhi to Meerut in a car which was intercepted at Mohan Nagar check post. The said instruments were brought without form 31/32. Consequently a notice was issued under 13-A to assessee. The assessee explained that the instruments were brought for testing T.V. sets and were not intended to be sold and the same were not brought for the purpose of business. The value of six old instruments was estimated at Rsw. 10,000 and three new instruments were estimated at Rs. 54,395. The Sale Tax Officer demanded security in the amount of Rs. 25,800 consequent to which the assessee moved an application under 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Vcheck Post ) who held that the authority seizing the goods was justified in demanding security. The first appeal preferred by the assessee was also dismissed. Consequently a second appeal was filed and that too has been dismissed any the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Aggrtieved against the same the same the present revision has been preferred.

On consideration of submissions made by the learned counsel for the assessee the Sales Tax Tribunal has, as contemplated by law, recorded a finding of fact that that the intention of the owner was to evade tax. After a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tridbunal I find that there is no infirmity or error of law is involved in the same.

In the result, the revision fails and the dismissed with cost. The interim order dated may, granted in the case is here by vacated.