This revision arises out of the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow dated 12.8.2014. The following question of law has been framed:
"Whether in view of the amendment to Section 54(1)(14) introduced in the U.P. VAT Act w.e.f. 26.5.2014 and the recent decision of this Hon'ble Court in C.T.R. No. 81 of 2014 (M/s Sahu Traders Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes), the order of the Tribunal below directing the revisionist to deposit 40% of the value of the consignment in respect of a commodity whose sales are taxable @ 5% and is mentioned in Schedule-III of U.P. VAT Act is legally sustainable?"
Briefly stated the case of the revisionist is that 11 loaded Trunks of Mentha Oil weighing 1980 kg. were being carried by a Truck with invoice in favour of M/s SMC Com Trade Ltd. Masauli to the MCX go-down which is also situated in Masauli. These facts are not disputed. The further case of the revisionist is that the goods which were being carried was Mentha Oil which is notified as an agricultural product under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. However, on 19.6.2014, the Mobile Squad inspected the vehicle and seized the consignment on the ground that the same was not accompanied by any bill, bilty, invoice, Gatepass, 6R, and 9R. Thereafter the order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade II (Special Investigation Branch), Faizabad Zone, Faizabad seizing the goods and demanding a security of Rs.5,54,400/- being 40% of the estimated value of the consignment which was estimated at Rs. 13,86,000/-. An application was filed before the Additional Commissioner for release of the goods under the proviso to Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act. By order dated 17.7.2014 the said application has been rejected and the order of seizure and the imposition of security demand of 40% has been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. Aggrieved the revisionist filed appeal No. 221 of 2014 before the Commercial Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 12.8.2014 has confirmed the security demand of Rs. 5,54,400/-.
I have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Agarwal and Shri Vaibhav Pandey for the revisionist and the Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
The contention of Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal is that the revisionist was a registered dealer which fact has not been disputed by any of the authorities below and further that the goods were being carried from Masauli Chauraha to the MCX go-down, which fact has also not been disputed. He has also placed reliance upon the U.P. VAT (Amendment) Ordinance 2014 by which amendments were introduced in Section 54 of the U.P. VAT Act and it was provided that where the dealer or any other person transports any taxable goods in contravention of any provisions of this Act in the case of a registered dealer, the amount of penalty which can be charged shall be 15% of the value of the goods, if the goods are of any description as described in Schedule II or Schedule III of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. It is further submitted that Clause (b) of the amendment further provides that in the case of other person, other than the registered dealer the tax payable on the value of the goods would be 40% whichever is higher. Since the revisionist is a registered dealer the penalty would be 15% of the value of the goods and since mentha oil finds mention in entry no. 255 of Schedule II-C in the Schedule to the U.P. VAT Act is taxable at the rate of 5%.
Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior counsel further submitted that on 9.7.2014 a circular has been issued by the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, which further provides that the security in the case of a registered dealer who is found taking goods within the State but without adequate documents and the goods fall within Schedule II and III of the U.P. VAT Act the amount of security shall be 15% of the value of the Goods. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under:
"d- iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa ls izkUr ls izkUr ds vUnj rFkk izkUr ls izkUr ds ckgj ifjofgr eky ds] ifjizs{; esa] tekur tek djk;s tkus ls lacfa/kr funsZ"k% ¼1½ izkUr ls izkUr ds vUnj rFkk izkUr ls izkUr ds ckgj ifjofgr oLrq ftlds laca/k esa =qfViw.kZ laO;ogkj fd;k tkuk izdk"k esa vk;k gS ;fn m0iz0 ewY; laof/kZr dj vf/kfu;e] 2008 dh vuqlwph& II vFkok vuqlwph& III esa lekfgr gS rks eky ds ewY; dk 15% tekur dh jkf"k olwy dh tk,xhA"
He therefore submits that the provision of 40% by way of security money is absolutely illegal and contrary to the circular of the Department itself.
I have examined the circular dated 9.7.2014 and from a perusal of the same it is quite clear that the amount of security has now been reduced to 15% of the value of the goods in the case of a registered dealer where the goods are being transported for intra State sale but are not accompanied by adequate documents.
In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal dated 12.8.2014 is not correct and the same is modified and it is provided that the revisionist shall be required to deposit the security amount equivalent to 15% of the value of the goods.
The revision stands allowed with the above observations.
Order Date :- 5.9.2014 o.k.