- (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the assessee-revisionist and Sri B.K.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite-party/department.
(2.) THE revision under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is directed against an order of seizure which has been upheld by the Joint Commissioner as well as Tribunal. THE consignment of four packets going from Mathura to Gorakhpur were intercepted and seized by the department vide order dated 24.1.2011 and were directed to be released on furnishing cash security of 40% of the estimated value of the goods. THE submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that no ground for seizure as provided under Section 48 of the Act exists and, therefore, the order of seizure is patently illegal. From the records, it is apparent that the goods were accompanied by tax invoices No.10 and 11 both dated 13.1.2011 whereby goods worth Rs.40,588.00 and Rs.36,944.00 totalling Rs.77,532.00 were being transported. Invoices had TIN numbers and were duly signed. Section 48 of the Act provides for grounds for seizure, namely, when the officer authorised has reason to believe that (i) the goods are not traceable to a bonafide dealer; (ii) they are accompanied by the documents bearing wrong particulars; and they are not properly accounted in the books maintained in the normal course of business. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the goods were seized as they were accompanied by the documents bearing wrong particulars. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the goods were duly accompanied by tax invoices wherein no discrepancy was found. The discrepancy was only in respect of the earlier invoices No.1 to 6 issued by the same dealer. The authorities have come to the conclusion that when the TIN number was allotted to the dealer in the month of September, it was not possible to mention it on earlier six invoices issued before September. The said six invoices are not the subject matter of dispute in the present case and are not related to the goods which have been seized. Thus, if the wrong particulars have been mentioned in the earlier invoices that cannot be a valid ground for seizing the goods in question which were duly accompanied by the necessary documents i.e. tax invoices wherein there was no discrepancy. In view of the above, as no ground for seizure, as provided under Section 48 of the Act exists, I am of the opinion that the seizure order is bad and cannot sustain.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the orders dated 29.1.2011 and 7.3.2011 are set aside and the goods are directed to be released forthwith without any security. Revision is allowed but without cost.;