RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated June 15, 2006 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the seizure of the goods, namely, 99 drums of agro -chemicals and the demand of security at Rs. 15 lacs.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case stated in the revision petition are that the applicant is a private limited company having its registered office situated at 116 -A, GH -2, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and its manufacturing unit situated at District Kamrup, Assam. The applicant has branch office at Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. The applicant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of agro -chemicals. It is stated that on June 3, 2005, the applicant dispatched 75 drums and 198 bags of agro -chemicals from its manufacturing unit to its branch in the State of Punjab. The consignment was for 6,600 kg., and its value was Rs. 76,20,000. In respect of the said consignment, invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 was issued. It is stated that on June 9, 2005 the applicant booked 117 bags and 30 drums of agro -chemicals from Kamrup, Assam to Bhatinda, Punjab. The total weight of the consignment was 6,300 kg., valuing Rs. 76,20,000. However, the transporter, M/s. Transolutions Pvt. Ltd., on the directions of the applicant, dispatched only 99 drums weighing 5,100 kg., agro -chemicals on June 9, 2005 in truck No. HR -55A/4687 by G.R. No. 6401589. The value of the consignment was Rs. 59,87,142.85. As per G.R., goods were to be transported from District Kamrup, Assam to Bhatinda, Punjab. At the entry check -post at Tamkuhiraj on the application of the driver transit pass was issued. In the transit pass, G. R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 for 99 drums, the name of consignor, consignee, 99 drums of agro -chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., valued at Rs. 59,87,142.85 were mentioned. When the vehicle reached T. P. Nagar Check -post, Ghaziabad on June 15, 2005, at the check -post, driver of the vehicle submitted the transit pass for necessary endorsement. It appears that from the possession of the driver, invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005 were recovered. On physical verification, 99 drums weighing 5,100 kg., agro -chemicals were found. The Check -post Officer detained the goods and issued show cause notice mainly on the ground that the goods found on physical verification did not tally with the goods mentioned in invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. The applicant replied to the show cause notice and stated that invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 did not relate to the consignment in dispute, namely, 99 drums, in respect of which transit pass was issued. The Check -post Officer, however, did not accept the plea of the applicant and seized the goods on the ground that the goods found on physical verification did not tally with the goods mentioned in invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34, dated June 3, 2005. The goods were seized and security at Rs. 15 lacs were demanded for the release of the goods. The applicant filed application under the proviso to Section 13 -A(6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Check -post, Mohannagar, Ghaziabad. The application was rejected vide order dated January 28, 2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Check -post Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction and has illegally seized the impugned goods. He submitted that the goods were coming from Assam and were going to Bhatinda, Punjab and as required under Section 28B and rule 87, the transit pass was obtained at the entry check -post, Tamkuhiraj on June 13, 2005 in respect of 99 drums of agro -chemicals weighing 5,100 kg., relating to G. R. No. 6401589 dated June 9, 2005 and the same goods were found at the entry check -post at T. P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, on physical verification on June 15, 2005. He submitted that invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 were not relating to the impugned goods and the authorities below have illegally tried to connect invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 both dated June 3, 2005 relating to the impugned goods and on the basis of the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34 have illegally inferred that the goods found on physical verification did not tally with the goods mentioned in the invoice No. 33 and delivery note No. 34. He submitted that at the entry check -post, the Check -post Officer could only verify the goods with reference to the goods mentioned in the transit pass and the G. R. mentioned in the transit pass and not with reference to any other documents. He submitted that the seizure was patently illegal and as a result of harassment. He also claimed the loss suffered by the applicant.;