S/S RANCHI CARRYING CORPORATION Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-248
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 15,2017

S/S Ranchi Carrying Corporation Appellant
VERSUS
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Goods during the course of transportation were seized, and its release made conditional upon deposit of amount, since at the time vehicle was intercepted by the mobile squad, the details of purchaser and seller, who were situated in other States, were not found to be registered and their TIN number was found wrong at the website concerned. The assessee has filed an appeal in which the tribunal has reduced the liability and directed deposit of only 40% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 2,63,040/-. Aggrieved by the condition imposed for release of goods, the dealer has filed the present revision.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in M/s Om Enterprises and another v. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow, delivered in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.777 of 2013, dated 23.10.2013 , in which it is held that existence of consignor or consignee or their registration with the trade tax authorities is not relevant for the purposes of seizing the goods in transit. It has further been held that the object of providing the transit declaration form is to ensure that the goods which enters passes out of the State and is not sold within the State and that there is no evasion of trade tax. Learned counsel further submits that the goods had virtually reached the exit point and in such circumstances, the orders are illegal.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has invited attention of the Court to the order of the tribunal, which clearly records that the entire transaction was sham. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all. It is also contended that the question as to whether ultimately any penalty proceedings ought to be drawn in the matter or not would be a factor to be gone into by the authority at appropriate stage, and the appellate authority or this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in returning a finding to the effect that no penalty proceedings at all can be initiated. Submission is that interest of revenue too is required to be protected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.