Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE revisionist's goods carrier i.e. Truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 25G 9484 was intercepted by Assistant Commissioner/Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, 3rd Unit, Ghaziabad at Mohan Nagar on 22.3.2014 and he found several inconsistency in the document, as alleged, loaded in the Truck. The number of items was mentioned in transit declaration form as '1' whereas total number of items found loaded actually are '88'. The seller firm, whose invoices were relied, in enquiry, was found nonest/non bona fide and therefore appeal was rejected. There was no mention of weighment of truck in Column 19 of TDF -1 having been done at the Boarder. The nature of goods was mentioned in the invoice as "plastic toys" while many cartons were found containing "electronic LED toys". The assessing authority formed opinion on the basis of incorrect information that goods were imported in the State of U.P. with an intention to sell therein and evade payment of tax, therefore, he proceeded under Section 50 read with 52 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2008"). A notice was issued to the revisionist and after receiving reply, an order was passed seizing the goods. The revisionist was directed to deposit 40% of the value of the goods, as security, for release thereof. Thereagainst, the matter was taken before Joint Commissioner under Section 48 of Act, 2008 but Joint Commissioner confirmed order of Assessing Authority and revisionist's second appeal has also been dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2014.
(3.) IT is contended that mere discrepancies in the form will not justify seizure of the goods.;