AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Revisionist is aggrieved by an order of tribunal whereby it has been required to deposit tax payable upon the estimated value of goods or deposit bank guarantee for release of the commodity.
The grievance of the revisionist is that the goods were being transported from Gujarat to Assam and a valid Transit Declaration Form (TDF) was issued. It is stated that the vehicle was moving as per the route specified and the time to exit had not expired. It is also stated that the vehicle almost reached at the exit point at Ghazipur, and there was nothing on record to indicate that the goods were likely to be sold in the State. It is contended that the only ground relied upon to doubt the transaction was that the purchaser has intimated the authorities on phone that it had not placed any order. Contention is that description of consignor and consignee was correct and any telephonic verification was not warranted. It is also stated that the purchaser would ordinarily avoid any business association if it is found that consignment has been seized and penal proceedings may be drawn. Submission is that relevant considerations are lacking in the decision making process, and wholly on misplaced grounds transaction itself has been doubted, which cannot be sustained.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that at this stage, such issues need not engage attention of the Court, inasmuch as it is only at the stage of penalty proceedings that such aspects would be gone into and the assessee will have all right to plead its case. It is also stated that once the consignee has denied placing of any order, the authorities were justified in seizing the goods.
Learned counsel for the revisionist in reply further points out that before the authorities evidence from another purchaser from State of Bihar was produced, who had clearly acknowledged his willingness to buy the goods, but such aspect has not been taken into consideration.
Having considered the submissions aforesaid, this Court finds that prima facie evidence had been placed on record by the assessee in the form of valid TDF form to substantiate his plea that goods were being transported through the State. Other supporting materials also exits to support its contention. The vehicle had reached the exit point and the documents produced were not objected except for the denial of placing the order on phone. Any further observation relating to the respective claim is not warranted as it may affect proceedings which may be undertaken in accordance with law.
In such circumstances, the tribunal could have protected the interest of revenue by requiring the assessee to furnish security other than cash or bank guarantee, for the purposes of release of goods, subject to appropriate proceedings, which may be drawn in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order of the tribunal dated 10.2.2017 stands modified to that extent, and it is observed that in case the assessee furnishes security other than cash or bank guarantee for the required amount, the goods shall be released subject to the appropriate proceedings, which may be drawn in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present revision stands disposed of.