Manoj Kumar Gupta - (1.) This reference to Larger Bench is occasioned by order of one of us (Hon. Suneet Kumar, J) noticing divergence of opinion between judgements of two Co-ordinate Benches in M/s Prakash Transport Corporation Vs. CCT,2013 UPTC 1456 and M/s S.B. International Gularbhoj Vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, 2013 UPTC 1144. The questions that have been referred to us are:- "(i) which of the two cases i.e. M/s Prakash Transport Corporation vs. CCT or M/s S.B. International Gularbhoj vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Lucknow, lays down the correct proposition of law; (ii) whether the Transit Declaration Form (TDF) is mandatory requirement in view to the circular issued by the Commissioner read with Section 52 of the Act and Rule 58 of the Rules or in the alternative upon non-production of the TDF on interception of the goods whether a presumption that the goods are meant for sale within the State can mandatorily be drawn in view of Section 52 read with Rule 58 and the circular dated 3 September 2013 issued by the Commissioner."
(2.) In M/s Prakash Transport Corporation, a vehicle carrying the goods was seized by the mobile squad of the commercial tax department of the State on 13.9.2013 on account of non-production of transit declaration form (for short 'TDF'). In response to show cause notice, the noticee produced a TDF downloaded from the official website of the department on 18.9.2013. The authorities refused to place reliance upon the same, as according to them, the TDF should have been carried by the driver alongwith him. Since he failed to carry the same, consequently, it was presumed under Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 58 that the goods were meant for sale within the State. Resultantly, a seizure order exercising power under Section 48/50/51 read with Rule 58 was passed. The learned Single Judge deciding the validity of the seizure order held that the authorities had no power to seize the goods for non-production of TDF, though the same may attract penal consequences.
(3.) In M/s S.B. International also the driver of the vehicle failed to produce TDF at the time vehicle was intercepted by the authorities. Here also, it was treated to be a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 52 read with Rule 58. In response to show cause notice, the vehicle owner produced the TDF generated two days after the interception of the vehicle. As in case of M/s Prakash Transport, the authorities did not accept the same but treated the non-production of TDF at the time of interception as a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 52 read with Rule 58 and directed for seizure of the goods. However, in this case, the seizure order was given a seal of approval by this Court.;