- (1.) Heard Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee-revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for the department.
(2.) Assessee seeks quashing of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Moradabad in proceedings under Section 48 (7) of the Value Added Tax dated 27th April, 2013 as also the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 7th May, 2013, whereby the second appeal filed by the assessee against the said order of the Joint Commissioner being Second Appeal No. 131/13 has been dismissed and thereby the order of the Joint Commissioner has been maintained.
(3.) The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: Vehicle no. UP21N-4688 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner (In-charge), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad VIth Unit, Moradabad. It was found that chemicals were transported vide Builty No. 135/24-4-13 through the vehicle belonging to Jai Durga Transport Service, Ghaziabad. The builty disclosed that the goods were to be transported from Delhi to Goolar Bhoj (Uttrakhand). The goods were accompanied by Invoices, first dated 18th April, 2013 disclosing the value of the goods as 39,22,920/- being Invoice No. 06/257/18-4-13 of M/s Bhagwati Traders, 288, Naya Bans Delhi and second dated 18th April, 2013 disclosing the value of the goods as Rs. 38,51,499.60/- being Invoice No. 09/406 of M/s Mahavir Enterprises, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi. That Form-16 was made available bearing No. 1636377 of the assessee, namely, M/s S.B. International Goolar Bhoj, Gadarpur, Udham Singh Nagar. No transit pass could be produced by the transporter nor could it be downloaded from the official website at the time the goods were so intercepted. Mobile Squad authorities treating such non-production of transit pass even after entry into the State of Uttar Pradesh held the same is in violation of Section 52 read with Rule 58 of the Value Added Tax Act. The goods were accordingly seized. Against the seizure order, the assessee made an application under Section 48(7) of the Value Added Tax Act, which was rejected and the assessee was permitted release of the goods on furnishing security of 40% of the value of the goods in cash. Against the said order, the assessee filed second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. It has also been dismissed. Hence the present revision.;