ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Revisionist before this Court is a transporter situated at Delhi, which is aggrieved by the proceedings of seizure where under the goods have been directed to be released only upon deposit of 40% of the value of goods transported amounting to Rs. 4,59,680/-. The first appeal and second appeal have also been rejected.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist points out that the goods had been sent from Delhi and were going to Jharkhand when vehicle was intercepted. The Transit Declaration Form mentioning all such details were found in existence. Proceedings were initiated on the ground that details of consignee and consignor had not been furnished and that quantity of goods packed in each consignment was apparently more than what has been disclosed in bill. Learned counsel submits that once a valid Transit Declaration Form was found in existence, there was no material to doubt that the goods were being transported through the State of U.P. to Jharkhand, and that there was no justification for the authorities to seize the goods and require the assessee to deposit 40% of its value for the purposes of release of goods. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier, Gwalior v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2003 UPTC 1218.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.456 of 2016 (The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S. Bihar Carrying Corporation) as well as in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.460 of 2016 (The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S/ Jai Mata Di Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd.).;