Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. vs J.U. Pesticides And Chemical P. Ltd

2. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2005, the respondent filed an application in terms of Section 13A(6) of the Act for release of the goods without payment of security before Deputy Commissioner (Check Post) Trade Tax, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. The said Authority by order dated 28.1.2006 rejected the application and affirmed the Seizure Order as well as the demand of security for release of goods. Order passed under Section 13A(6) by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Tribunal, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, Bench II (in short 'Tribunal'). Stand of the respondent before the Tribunal was the Transit Pass has been issued from the Entry Check Post on 13.6.2005 when the truck arrived at the Exit Check Post on 15.6.2005, after travelling the distance of about 700 k.m. and it was not possible during such short period for the truck driver to unload and sell the goods originally loaded in the truck at the time of entering the State through the Entry Check Post and thereafter to load other goods in the same vehicle from a place within the State of Uttar Pradesh before crossing the State through the Exit Check Post. Tribunal rejected the contention on the ground that the plea about possibility of unloading and selling the goods was not acceptable. The Tribunal observed that merely because the said vehicle had covered a distance of 700 k.m. it could not be ruled out that as a part of the pre-planned strategy, the original goods could be unloaded and in its place different goods could be loaded within a short period of one or two hours. The Tribunal observed that whether the goods loaded in the vehicles were those very goods which were available in the vehicle at the time of entry of the vehicle at the Check Post as a fact which could be ascertained only after the through examination of the documents presented at the Exit Check Post as well as the physical verification of the goods loaded in the vehicle at the time of inspection at the Exit Check Post.

4. Tribunal noticed that the driver or the person in charge of the goods loaded in the vehicles is required to stop the vehicle at the Exit Check Post, surrender one copy of the Trip Sheet and allowed the officer posted at Exit Check Post to ensure that the goods loaded in the vehicle are those very goods which are covered by the Trip Sheet and for the said purposes, the relevant account Books connected with the goods and its transportation shall, if necessary, are required to be produced for examination by the officer. Reference was made to Rule 87(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (in short the 'Rules') to observe that the officer posted at the Check Post is not only supposed to count the number of drums as disclosed in the Trip Sheet, but is supposed to satisfy himself after examining the relevant documents, consignment and the goods that the goods being transported outside the State of U.P. are those very goods which were loaded in the truck at the time of its entry at the Entry Check Post and as mentioned in the Trip Sheet.

7. Respondent challenged the findings of the Tribunal in the Revision filed before the High Court, which as noted above, allowed it.

8. The basic stand of the appellant is that the scope of interference in a proceeding under the Act is very limited; it can only interfere in the question of law and should not normally interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

12. The High Court's order, which is clearly indefensible, is set aside.

The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.