HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Commercial Tax Revision No.33 of 2010 M/s Jai Jagdamba Scrap Supplier Pvt. Ltd. …Revisionist/applicant Versus Commissioner, Commercial Tax & another ....Respondents Dated : August 20th 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. 2. We do not think any interference is called for in the present Commercial Tax Revision Application. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Applicant is a registered dealer in U.P. It purchased Iron Scarp from the Railways, having its establishment in the State of Uttarakhand. While purchasing the goods applicant paid Central Sales tax and thereby made it absolutely explicit that the goods are on transit from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of U.P. However, before the goods reached the State of U.P., the applicant, who is not a registered dealer in Uttarakhand, purported to sell the same to one of its customers in the State of U.P. Before the goods could cross the border of Uttarakhand, the same were seized. As a condition for releasing the goods, security of 40% of the value of the goods has been claimed. Challenging the decision to release the goods upon payment of 40% of the 2 value of the goods as security, the matter was taken up to the Tribunal and having had lost there, the present revision application has been filed. The only question in the instant case is whether the goods in the circumstances is exposed to forfeiture. The applicant, who is not a dealer in Uttarakhand, purchased the goods in Uttarakhand showing that the same are intended to be taken to Uttar Pradesh and accordingly, the transaction will attract Central Sales Tax, but before receiving the goods in Uttar Pradesh, applicant appropriated the same from Uttarakhand towards a purported sale to a customer of the applicant at Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, despite not being a registered dealer in Uttarakhand, applicant purported to enter into a transaction of sale of the subject goods in Uttarakhand and accordingly, it does not appear that a case for forfeiture has not been made out. In the event, a case for forfeiture has been made out, we see no reason why 40% of the value of the goods to be forfeited cannot be insisted as security for release of the goods. We accordingly, dismiss the commercial tax revision. 3. After we dictated the order, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 40% demand be reduced. In the facts of this case, we find no reason to exercise any power to reduce the same. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.08.2010 Arti