- (1.) M. C. AGARWAL, J. This is a revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") preferred by the dealer against an order dated July 7, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in appeal No. 210 of 1999 against an order under section 13-A (6) of the Act.
(2.) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri S. D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner-respondent. On June 12, 1999 one Anil Kumar was carrying a consignment of 75 packages (cartons) of medicines from Delhi Airport to Meerut in a Armada jeep bearing No. HR-51-D-5982. While passing by the trade tax check-post (now known as Sahayata Kendra) at Mohannagar he did not report there and proceeded further. An officer of the department then chased him and about half a kilometre from the said check-post he was stopped and the said vehicle was brought to the check-post. On checking, he was found to be carrying the aforesaid consignment from Delhi to Meerut without any papers. The goods were, therefore, detained and a show cause notice was issued to him whereupon he filed a reply the next day that was a Monday on behalf of M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, the present revisionist in which it was stated that he was bringing the goods for the first time and did not know about the check-post and that the goods were brought from Bombay to Delhi by cargo and it was a stock transfer of medicines by M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited, Bhiwandi to its branch office at Meerut. It was also stated that the Meerut office of the company was a registered dealer and a form XXXI bearing number 1445930 is being produced. This explanation was not accepted and the goods were seized and ordered to be released on furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 20,03,690 being 40 per cent of the value of the goods that was estimated at Rs. 50,09,200. The representation under section 13-A (6) of the Act was rejected and so has been the appeal. The Tribunal took the view that there appeared to be an attempt to evade tax as the consignment was not accompanied by any papers and it was attempted to be carried through a document of M/s. Knoll Pharmaceuticals Limited which related to only one piece of exempted goods.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contended that while it is true that the driver of the aforesaid vehicle did not carry any papers with him while taking the goods from Delhi Airport to Meerut but that it was a mere technical default arising from the fact probably that the carrier did not know the procedure and that inspite of this default there was no reason for seizing the goods as there was no intention to evade tax. He placed reliance on Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All.); 1983 UPTC 198 in which it was observed (see page 68 of STC; paragraph 23 in UPTC) that the power to detain the goods and levy penalty in respect thereof cannot be exercised merely for the reason that the said goods were not accompanied by the requisite documents or that the documents accompanying them were false. This power can be exercised only if apart from a default in carrying the requisite documents, there is material before the detaining authority to indicate that the goods are being imported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. Reliance is also placed on similar observations in Prakash Pipes and Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1997 UPTC 328. The learned Standing Counsel did not challenge the legal position as enunciated in the aforesaid rulings. The question thus remains whether there were any circumstance to show that in the omission to carry the relevant documents particularly form XXXI there was any indication of an attempt to evade tax.;