Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


S/S New India Transport Co v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2109 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5235 (7 November 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




S/S New India Transport Company, Sagar (M.P).    ... Applicant.


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow                ...  Opp. Party.            

Hon'ble Rajes Kumr, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 07.10.2005 relating to the assessment year 2005-06 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, by which, the Tribunal has confirmed the seizure of the goods and has demanded security in cash to the extent of 20% on the value of goods which has been assessed to Rs.2,50,000/-.

The brief facts of the case are that on 29.08.2005 at Ambavoy Check Post, one Transit Pass no.1003 dated 29.08.2005 was obtained by the driver of Truck no. MP-15/G-(01) for transportation of the goods through the State of U. P., which was to be surrendered at Masaura Check Post.  The Transit Pass was issued in respect of 2 builty nos. 11160 and 11161 relating to two bill nos. 27 and 28 both dated 29.08.2005 issued by M/S Sriram Kirana Store, Gwalior.  The Transit Pass was issued for Kirana. At the exit Check Post, on physical verification, different goods were found, than mentioned in the bills and against the declaration in Form 34.  The entire goods were seized and a sum of Rs.1,31,008/- was demanded towards the security which was 40% of the estimated value of the goods at Rs.3,27,520/-.  Applicant filed an application under the proviso of Section 13-A (6) which has been rejected.  Applicant filed Appeal before the Tribunal.  Tribunal vide impugned order, allowed the appeal in part.  Tribunal has given benefit of some of the goods which were mentioned in the bills and were physically found and estimated the value of the goods, which were not verifiable from the bill, builty and Transit Pass at Rs.2,50,000/- and demanded security at 20% of the above amount.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in Madhya Pradesh, dry fruit is also commonly known as Kirana goods, therefore, driver had declared the Kirana goods in Transit Pass in respect of Kaju, Badam, Chohari etc.  It is also submitted that no difference has been found in the number of bags, but not able to explain that why the difference in the items of the goods were found.  He submitted that since there was no difference in the number of bags for which, Transit Pass was issued and found on physical verification, the seizure of goods and demand of security was unjustified.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of Tribunal and further submitted that the items, which were mentioned in the bills, were not found on physical verification for which, no explanation has been offered, therefore, he justified the demand of security.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  

I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  The facts found by the Tribunal prima facie made out a case of seizure of the goods and demand of security.  In bill no. 27, which relates to builty no. 11160, goods mentioned were 12 bags Chohari, 8 bags Badam Khara, 4 bags Kaju broken, 5 bags Sonth, 4 bags Bari Elaichi while on physical verification, 8 bags Choari, 1 bag Kauri and 1 bag Powder Soda, 2 bags Bari Elaichi, 6 bags Badam, 3 bags Badam Giri, 5 bags Laung, 3 bags Kaju, 2 Nag Sindur, 1 bag Heeng and 1 bag Pista were found.  Likewise, in bill no. 28, 1 bag Laung, 3 bags Chohari, 3 bagsSaunf and 1 bag Munakka were mentioned.  While on physical verification, 1 bag Postadana, 2 bags Laung, 2 bags Munakka, 2 bags Samundra Phen, 1 bag Pista were found.  Thus on physical verification, different goods were found than the goods mentioned in the invoice.

In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.