ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Revisionist, a transporter stationed at Delhi, is before this Court in the present revision, questioning legality of an order passed by the Tribunal, upholding seizure of goods and permitting its release upon deposit of security amounting to Rs. 3,96,800/-. Revisionist is not a dealer registered under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) It is alleged that 52 different persons booked consignment with it for transportation from Delhi to Jamshedpur. Invoices were furnished by the consignors and on such basis applicant prepared challan along with GR's for 484 boxes valued at Rs. 11,41,766/-. The goods were dispatched vide transport vehicle No. HR 37 C-9533. Before entering the State of U.P., applicant-revisionist obtained transit declaration form (TDF-I) No. D20161100247018 as is required under the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008. Entry point of vehicle in the State was shown at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad on 21.11.2016, whereas exit point of vehicle was shown as Bindomganj at Sonebhadra on 25.11.2016. On 21.11.2016, just after the vehicle entered U.P., it was checked by mobile squad and the driver of the vehicle produced TDR-1, challan dated 18.11.2016 for 484 boxes valued at Rs. 11,41,766/-; invoices; 52 GR's and weighment receipts. According to the revisionist, certain discrepancy was noticed and vehicle was detained. The driver left the vehicle and apparently returned to Delhi. A show cause notice was issued on 24.11.2016, fixing 29.11.2016 as the date. Notice also indicated that physical verification of goods is required. The notice was allegedly pasted on the vehicle. None appeared on 29.11.2016. Applicant denies receiving of this notice. A seizure order was passed on 30.12.2016, recording that notices were sent for physical verification of goods and in presence of the applicant's representative goods were physically verified. It was found that 232 items transported were over and above the goods specified in TDF-1, and 40% of its estimated value was directed to be deposited for release of goods. The revisionist preferred a representation under Section 48 (7) of the Act, which came to be rejected on 2.2.2017. It then preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which got rejected by the Tribunal vide order impugned. Thus aggrieved, the revisionist is before this Court in the present revision.
(3.) It is contended that since a valid TDF form was shown along with relevant documents, required to be possessed with the transport vehicle, the ex-parte proceedings of seizure and direction to deposit 40% of value of such goods towards security is wholly unjustified. It is stated that the proceedings are otherwise bad for non-service of show cause notice. It is asserted that such notice cannot be served by affixing it on vehicle under Rule-72. Grievance is also raised regarding valuation of goods and its physical verification. Submission is that the entire proceedings are unsustainable.;