R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) This trade tax revision has been preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short called "the Act") against the order dated July 26, 2002 passed in Appeal No, 148 of 2002 (2002-2003) under Section 13-A(6) of the Act. Heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant/ revisionist as well as Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent and with the consent of the parties this revision is disposed of finally at this stage finally under the second proviso to Rule 2 of chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision are that the applicant carried business of manufacture and sale of shoes for which latex (rubber) was the raw materials and 42 drums of same, valued Rs. 2,49,690 were being imported from out of the State which was examined at the check-post on April 25, 2002 and the person in-charge of the vehicle/driver produced documents including "form 31" duly filled in, goods receipt (G.R.)., sale invoice and other documents where the goods were detained on the ground that according to the letter dated April 22, 2002 of the transporter the dealer of Allahabad was to take the delivery of the aforesaid goods on payment of freight. On the basis of this it was believed that the import was being made by the Allahabad dealer with a view to evade payment of tax, therefore, the goods were seized on May 3, 2002 under Section 13-A read with Section 28-A of "the Act" and on the estimated value of Rs. 2,50,000 security at the rate of 40 per cent, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000 was demanded to release the goods. The applicant/ revisionist filed an application under Section 13-A(6) of "the Act" before the Assistant Commissioner whereupon the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application (annexure 3). The learned Tribunal partly allowed the second appeal, and upheld the seizure of the goods and reduced the amount directing to deposit double the amount of tax as security.
(3.) In the case of Shri Ram Automobiles v. State of U.P, 1990 UPTC 805 (DB) where the seizure order or even the order of Assistant Commissioner did not disclose any reason to justify the prima facie seizure when the invoice was in the name of petitioner and it was mentioned in the "form 31" that goods were being transported by them but on mere mentioning that said import was earmarked for the petitioner's man, such seizure was held not justified.;