- (1.) WE have heard Shri Ashok Kumar assisted by Shri Praveen Kumar for the petitioners. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for the State -respondents. Petitioner No. 1 is a transporter, and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are drivers of Truck Nos. U.P. 75 H -9355 and U.P. 78 CN -3029. They are aggrieved by the show -cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Unit Mobile Squad, Enquiry Post, giving reasons to show cause as to why the goods may not be seized under section 50 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. In the notice it is alleged that the documents accompanying the consignment have various discrepancies, which goes to show that these documents are bogus. He has also stated in the notice, that in the transit declaration form there is a difference between the signatures of the driver and transporter, and thus it appears that the papers have been forged. The Assistant Commissioner has fixed the matter for hearing on September 22, 2012.
(2.) IT is submitted by Shri Ashok Kumar, that the petitioners are transporter and drivers of the vehicles and are transporting the goods from Jalandhar in the State of Punjab to Raipur in the State of Chhatisgarh. The goods are in transit in the State of U.P. The transit declaration form was duly downloaded and filled up with entries complete and verifiable, and that the documents are genuine. There is nothing in the documents or in the transit declaration form, which may raise a presumption under section 52 of the Act and rule 58 to detain the goods. The power of detention under section 58 has been exercised illegally and without any authority. Shri Ashok Kumar submits that the goods were despatched from outside the State of U.P., and are going to outside the State along with all necessary documents with duly downloaded and filled up transit declaration form. The Commercial tax authorities do not have any power to detain the goods for verification of the documents. The power cannot be used for mala fide purpose. He has relied upon R.B.B.R.L. Contractor, New Delhi v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow : [2011] 16 VLJ 74 and Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Gautam Pandey : [2012] 47 VST 540 (All) : [2011] 16 VLJ 53. He also submits that the goods are perishable in nature, and that any delay in release of the goods will cause serious hardships and financial loss to the petitioners. He submits mat the petitioners are ready to furnish security other than cash and bank guarantee for release of the goods and to appear in the proceedings thereafter in accordance with the law.
(3.) SHRI S.P. Kesarwani, appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that on the reasons given in the show -cause notice there cannot be any doubt that the Assistant Commissioner has bona fide reasons to believe that the goods were being transported on bogus documents. The filling up of the downloaded transit declaration form by itself is not sufficient to presume the validity of the movement of the goods. The show -cause notice gives sufficient reason to indicate the application of mind, and that it is always open to the petitioners to explain to the Assistant Commissioner, that the goods were not being moved on bogus document.;