ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) The State as well as the assessee, both, are before this Court in their respective revisions, against an order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 10.2.2017, passed in Appeal No.6 of 2017, whereby the assessee's appeal has been allowed in part, and a direction has been issued to deposit 10% of the value of seized goods as estimated by Mobile Squad, either in cash or bank guarantee, for releasing the goods. A further direction has been issued by the Tribunal that as and when evidence is adduced before the authorities to the effect that goods have actually crossed the State, the bank guarantee or the cash, as the case may be, shall be returned.
(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of these revisions are that the assessee herein is a registered transporter, who is operating from Delhi-U.P. Border at Chikambarpur in Ghaziabad. Certain grocery items are stated to have been received by the transporter from the consignor located in Delhi for being sent to the consignee located in the State of Bihar. The goods were loaded in U.P., and were being transported to Patna. The transport vehicle was intercepted by the Mobile Squad, and documents produced were inspected. It was found that Transit Declaration Form (TDF) was available with transport vehicle, and according to the Tribunal, the vehicle was en-route as per details given in the TDF. It is further admitted that the time within which transport vehicle had to exit U.P. had not expired. However, a show cause notice was issued by the authority concerned, doubting the contention of the transporter that goods were being transported from Delhi. According to the department, such goods were being sent from within the State itself. 27GR/invoices produced were examined by the authorities. It was found that 26 out of these 27GR/invoices mentioned Tin numbers, which were found to be non-existent. The authorities, therefore, were of a prima facie opinion that in fact the consignor and consignee were all fictitious persons, and goods were being transported from Ghaziabad in the State of U.P., with the object of evading payment of tax. The show cause notice has been replied by the assessee contending that the details of consignor and consignee, as have been provided to the transporter, have been furnished, and the transporter has no means to verify their genuineness, nor is it warranted in law. The assessing authority, in such circumstances, has allowed release of goods, which is in the nature of grocery items, including dry fruits etc., upon furnishing of cash or bank guarantee to the extent of 40% of the value of goods. An appeal preferred against it was rejected. In second appeal, the Tribunal has modified the order, and a direction has been issued to release the goods upon deposit of 10% amount viz-a-viz estimated value of the goods. It is this order, which is the bone of contention between the parties.
(3.) Sri B.P. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, contends that materials existed on record to doubt genuineness, inasmuch as all supporting documents were prima facie found to be forged, and in such circumstances, the authorities were justified in insisting upon deposit of 40% amount, which is the amount that could be levied as penalty upon the assessee. It is also contended that dealer has not come forward, and it is the transporter, who is throughout contesting the matter. It is stated that this itself supports their apprehension that there is no consingor and consignee, and it is the transporter, who is carrying the goods with an intent to evade payment of tax. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the order passed by 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 another judgment of this Court 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.) , wherein this Court in similar circumstances interfered with the order of Tribunal, and directed deposit of cash/bank guarantee to the extent of 40% of estimated value.;