- (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the applicants and Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision was initially heard on 29.11.2016 and it was admitted. Facts of the Case:-
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that a truck bearing Registration No.UP22T4924 was intercepted by Assistant Mobile Squad, Commercial Tax, Pilibhit on 27.09.2016. A show cause notice under Section 48 of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued by the aforesaid authority on 09.10.2016 on allegations that the goods have been loaded from Ghaziabad and the invoices accompanying it, are fictitious and the consignors are non-existent. The respondent neither appeared nor submitted reply within the time allowed. After considering the facts and circumstances and the evidences on record, the Mobile Squad Authority came to the conclusion that the goods have been loaded from Ghaziabad and accordingly passed the seizure order dated 20.10.2016 demanding cash security of Rs.10,90,250/- for release of the seized goods, which were valued at Rs.27,25,624/-. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred an application under proviso to Section 48(7) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Range Barellie in which he took the stand that the goods were being transported from transshipment area at Delhi-U.P. Border. The same were accompanied with TDF-1, bills, bilties and weighment slip. The respondent also took the stand that transporter has no right to collect information about the consignor and whosoever books the goods, the same is transported by him for the given destination where the goods are delivered to the person who produces the bilty. The Joint Commissioner (SIB) found that the applicant is not registered under the Act. He considered the facts and evidences on record, and rejected the application of the respondent by order dated 02.11.2016. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent filed Appeal No.254 of 2016 under Section 57 of the Act before the Member of Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad (Division Bench)- II, Ghaziabad, which has been partly allowed by the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 directing for release of the entire goods without security except twenty articles valued at Rs.81,000/- which was directed to be released on security of Rs.32,400/-. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the tribunal, the applicant has filed the present revision. Submissions:-
(3.) Learned standing counsel submits that the goods were loaded within the State of U.P. Out of total 78 invoices accompanying the goods, seventy six invoices were found totally fake and bogus in enquiry and the alleged sellers were found non-existent. Only two invoices which were with respect to exempted goods were found to be genuine. TIN numbers of the alleged sellers printed in the aforesaid 74 invoices were also found to be forged and fake. Entire action of the respondent was fraudulent. As per transit declaration form, the purchasers are unregistered as TIN No. of none of the purchasers have been disclosed either in the transit declaration form or in the fake invoices accompanying the goods. Invoices do not contain even addresses of alleged purchasers. He submits that in fact the goods have been sold by the respondent assessee to some undisclosed persons under the cover of fake invoices, fraudulently showing it as being transported from outside the State of U.P. to out-side the State of U.P. so as to evade payment of tax. He submits that there was clear breach of provisions of Section 48 of the U.P. VAT Act, and, therefore, the mobile squad authorities have not committed any error in seizing the goods and demanding cash security of 40% on the estimated value of such goods. However, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law and facts to direct for release of goods (except few) without considering or giving due importance to concrete evidences of fraud on record. He submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.;