AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 having Tin No.09145302423. He has come up in this petition against the order of seizure dated 26.4.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit 8, Kanpur under Section 48 of the U.P. VAT Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') seizing 200 bags of Madhu Paan Masala and directing for the release of the said goods on furnishing security of 40 per cent of the value of the goods.
The submission of Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and as no ground for seizure as contemplated under Section 48 of ''the Act'' has been made out. The seizure order is also bad for non-compliance of the circular dated 3rd February, 2009 issued by the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.
Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that against the aforesaid order the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under section 57(4) of ''the Act'' and thereafter the remedy of filing revision under Section 58 of ''the Act''. Since the order is not without jurisdiction, the writ petition, directly against the order of seizure, is not maintainable.
It is true that where the statutes provide for a specific alternative remedy, the Court normally does not entertain the writ petition against the impugned order. However, it is settled in law that where the order is without jurisdiction or has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or is within the teeth of statutory provisions, the Court may not necessarily relegate the party to the alternative remedy provided under the statute.
In the case at hand, the order of seizure has been passed by competent authority but the basic question which arises is whether it is within the four corners of Section 48 of ''the Act''.
Section 48 of ''the Act'' provides for only three grounds on which an order of seizure can be passed namely:
Where the goods do not belong to any bona fide dealer;
Where the goods are under valued to the extent of more than 50% of the value of the goods with the intention to evade tax;
Where the documents accompanying the goods contain wrong particulars; and
Where it is doubtful that such goods are properly accounted by any dealer in his accounts, registers or other documents maintained in the ordinary course of his business.''
Apart from these grounds no other ground is available for the seizing authority to pass an order of seizure.
A bare perusal of the impugned seizure order dated 26.4.2017 which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the petition reveals that it does not record any finding that the goods are not traceable to any bona fide dealer or that the documents accompanying the goods contains wrong particulars and that the goods are not properly accounted in the accounts, register, and other documents maintained by the dealer in the ordinary course of business.
In view of the above, apparently none of the three conditions exist for passing order under Section-48 for seizure of the goods.
A Division Bench of this Court in M/s Loka Ispat Private Ltd. v. State of U.P. and another reported in [2017 U.P.T.C. 317] held that where all papers are accompanying the goods and the consignment is otherwise in order, the seizure of goods under Section 48 of ''the Act'' is not justified.
In view of the admitted facts on record, as it is reflected from the impugned order, we do not consider it fit to even call for counter affidavit in the matter.
Accordingly, we quash/set aside the order of seizure dated 26.4.2017 and direct for the release of the goods forthwith.
The writ petition stands allowed.