JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated December 15, 2004 arising from Appeal No. 772 of 2004 relating to the proceedings under Section 13A(6) of the Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the driver of Vehicle Nos. CPV-6877 and MP-19-D-6139 presented papers for issuing trip sheet at Ambabai check-post. On inquiry, it was found that those trucks were carrying supari, but it is alleged that the papers were not found to be genuine. Therefore, notice Nos. 728 and 729 dated October 13, 2004 were issued. In respect of truck No. 6877, prayer was made for issuing trip sheet for 31, 34 and 35 bags of supari besides other goods to be transported vide bilty Nos. 6697, 6698 and 6699 from Gwalior to Chhatarpur. For these bags, bill No. 2910 dated October 12, 2004 of M/s. Bansal Kirana Bhandar, Dal Bazar, Mainawali-gali, Gwalior, bill No. 1258 dated October 12, 2004 of M/s. Prakash Trading Company and bill No. 5838 dated October 12, 2004 of M/s. Sanmati Kirana Store, Gwalior, were produced. The purchasers of the goods were shown in the bill as M/s. Suresh Brothers, Satna Road, Rewa, M/s. Basant Traders, Satna and M/s. Prabhu Kirana Stores, Satna. On inquiry, it was found that no firm in the name of M/s. Prabhu Kirana Stores, Satna, was in existence. In respect of vehicle No. M.P. -19-D-6139, besides other items, request was made for issuing trip sheet for 34 and 30 bags of supari vide G.R. Nos. 6695 and 6696 being transported from Gwalior to Navgaon. For these goods, bill No. 2969 dated October 12, 2004 of M/s. Bansal Kirana Bhandar, Laskar, Gwalior, and bill No. 1257 dated October 12, 2004 of M/s. Prakash Trading Company, Laskar, Gwalior, were produced and as per these bills, purchasers were M/s. Bharat Traders, Bus Stand Road, Satna and M/s. Balram Traders, Satna. On inquiry being made from Commercial Tax Officer, Satna, it was found that these firms were not in existence. The check-post officer, on these basis, was of the view that the goods may likely to be sold inside the State of U.P. It has also been alleged that the different quality of goods were mentioned in the trip sheet, than the quality of the supari was found on verification. The check-post officer accordingly, seized the goods and demanded security at Rs. 2,81,060 being 40 per cent of the value of the goods for the release of the goods. The applicant filed an application under proviso to Section 13A(6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Sahayata Kendra, Jhansi, which was rejected vide order dated October 27, 2004. The applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed. However, the Tribunal observed that after deposit of the security amount/bank guarantee trip sheet may be issued.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the seizure of the goods is based merely on presumption. He submitted that it is wrong that the purchasing parties were not genuine and no opportunity has been given in this regard. He further submitted that merely because the purchasing parties alleged to be not in existence, it cannot be presumed that the goods may not cross the State of U.P. He submitted that the applicant is a transport company and is genuine transporter who has transported the goods several times and on earlier occasion trip sheets obtained were always surrendered at the exit check-post and there is no case against the transporter in which the transporter was found selling the goods inside the State, in case where the trip sheets have been obtained at the check-post. He submitted that the jurisdiction to seize the goods only arise, and the authority concerned can only take action, in case trip sheets are not found to have been surrendered at the exit check-post. Before such a situation can arise, goods should not be seized. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that on the facts of the case, seizure is justified and further submitted that since the purchasing parties are not in existence, it is doubtful that the goods will cross the State and be delivered to the purchasers. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it is not necessary to adjudicate the issue relating to validity of seizure of goods. Revenue's case is that the goods may likely be sold inside the State of U. P. and trip sheets may not be surrendered at the exit check-post. In the circumstances, I direct the authority concerned to issue trip sheet on furnishing of bank guarantee to the amount of tax to secure the interest of Revenue and to ensure the movement of goods outside the State of U. P. The concerned authority may pass appropriate order in both situations in the event trip sheet is not surrendered and in case if it will be surrendered and consider the request for the release of bank guarantee.
5. With these observations, revision is disposed of.