Manoj Kumar Gupta, J - (1.) THE revisionist firm is a registered dealer under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is trading in pan masala and zarda, which are classified in Schedule IV and are non -vatable. The tax is single point, payable at the rate of 30 per cent, on the point of sale by "manufacturer" or "importer" as per Notification No. dated August 30, 2012. On September 11, 2014, the Assistant Commissioner (Special Investigation Branch) conducted a survey of a new godown of the revisionist firm and seized the stock of pan masala and zarda, by passing seizure order dated September 16, 2014. The revisionist applied under section 48(7) of the Act for release of seized goods. The petition filed, in this regard, was rejected by order dated October 1, 2014. The appeal filed against these orders before the Tribunal has been allowed in part by the impugned order dated October 16, 2014. The order of the Joint Commissioner (S.I.B.) Commercial Tax Range II, Lucknow, requiring the applicant -firm to deposit cash security of 40 per cent of the estimated value of the seized goods, was modified and the release has been permitted on deposit of security of 30 per cent of the value of goods in cash. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally at this stage itself. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the seizure order is bad in law, as the goods found in the godown, were duly accounted in the accounts of the firm, maintained in ordinary course of business. It is contended that the account books have been wrongly ignored from consideration merely on the ground of suspicion. It is submitted that if the account books are taken into consideration, then all the goods seized stand duly accounted for. It is further submitted that the seized goods were branded items from the manufacturer M/s. Shimla Special Flavour. These were purchased from the manufacturer after paying 30 per cent tax, for which purchase vouchers were duly produced but were wrongly ignored from consideration. It is contended that the only default on part of the applicant -firm was that the addition of new godown could not be intimated in time, primarily because of ignorance of the change in procedure from July 1, 2014, whereunder, only online applications are entertained. The applicant -firm being unaware of the procedure tried to make application along with form 12 in hard copy on August 5, 2014, which was not accepted. Thereafter, it applied for password for uploading its request on the e -service portal on same day. Due to spelling mistake in email I.D. of the revisionist, the password was not communicated to it. The error was corrected on the very next date, i.e., August 6, 2014. The password was intimated by the assessing officer only on September 10, 2014. The applicant intimated about the addition of the new godown on September 11, 2014, on which date inspection was also made. There was no intention on part of the applicant to evade payment of any tax. It is further contended that the transfer of goods from the existing godown of the applicant to the new godown was made for the first time on September 9, 2014 and thus, 30 days time was available with it to intimate such change. Consequently, no case for seizure was made out. In any case, the demand of cash security for the entire amount of tax allegedly payable is onerous, as the goods are not vatable.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Sankhdhar, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that admittedly at the time of inspection, the applicant firm failed to produce the account register and other documents relating to the goods found in the godown. It took repeated adjournments and ultimately, filed documents on September 15, 2014 after fabricating the same. It is thus contended that the seizure order as well as the order directing the applicant to deposit security in cash to the extent of 30 per cent of the value of goods is fully justified. It is further contended by him that the question of intention to evade tax is not to be seen at this stage and since there is sufficient material to justify the seizure, no interference is warranted.;