ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the orders passed by the Value Added Tax Authorities, seizing the goods on account of non production of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) and permitting release thereof only upon deposit of tax to the extent of 40% of estimated value of goods by cash or bank draft in terms of section 48 of the Act.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of this Court in M/s. Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax reported 2015 UPTC 467 in order to contend that mere non production of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) would only give rise to a rebuttable presumption that goods were likely to be sold within the State and that the authorities are required to consider all facts and circumstances placed before taking a decision to seize the goods. Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court to the documents appearing on record, which prima facie establishes that loose mustered oil was being sent by the revisionist, who is a registered dealer in Rajasthan, to another registered dealer in West Bengal and that valid invoice was produced by the driver at the time of detention of the vehicle. It is also stated that the goods were insured and insurance cover note has also been produced. Learned counsel has further invited attention of the Court to Form 49-A issued by the tax authorities of the State of Rajasthan as well as Form 50-A issued by the tax authorities in West Bengal, to demonstrate that the transaction was duly acknowledged by the authorities in the two State. Learned counsel further submits that as a matter of fact Transit Declaration Form was applied but the cafe owner erroneously filled details of other transaction, on account of which a correct TDF form was not produced. It is also stated that the consignor and consignee are all identified and otherwise no doubt or dispute has been raised with regard to genuineness of transaction. Submission is that rebuttable presumption was duly discharged by the revisionist and authorities were not justified in seizing the goods and requiring the assessee to furnish security at the rate of 40% of the estimated value of goods.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that all such issues as are being raised before this Court can be examined at the appropriate stage, if the authorities proceed to initiate penalty proceedings and any observation on the claim of assessee at this stage is not warranted. It is also stated that interest of revenue has to be protected in case any penalty proceedings are drawn.;