Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Yadav Foods Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 August, 2024
Reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPILYAL
COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION NO. 16 OF 2014
M/s Yadav Foods Ltd. .....Revisionist.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. C.S. Semwal and Mr. Pankaj
Tangwan, learned counsels.
Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief
Holder.
Judgment Reserved on: 08.07.2024
Judgment Delivered on: 05.08.2024
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
The present Commercial Tax Revision was admitted
on 27.06.2014, on the following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the learned Tribunal was legally justified in demanding
security when all the relevant information relating to the said
goods was already uploaded on the website of the department
and the department had duly acknowledged the receipt of the
uploaded information?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the learned Tribunal without deciding the fact relating to the
intention of the dealer was legally justified to upload the
demanded security when the said goods were being imported
as raw material for the manufacture of Aata, Maida and Suji
which are exempted under the VAT Act?"
2. This Court, on 27.06.2014, as an interim measure
directed that the goods seized by the Department be released
in favour of the revisionist on furnishing personal bond of
Rs.56,000/- and there will be no cash security.
3. In the present case, the revisionist is a flour mill
owner in the name and style of M/s Yadav Foods Ltd.,
Rudrapur Road, Kichha, and is duly registered with the
Commercial Tax Department. The revisionist had purchased
550 bags of wheat weighing 323.30 Quintals for
Rs.4,92,800/- from M/s Durga Prasad Makhan Lal, New Mandi
Bilsi, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, and after purchasing the goods,
the same were being imported by truck number UP21 AN
3165, on 28.05.2014. The goods were accompanied with the
following documents:-
"i. Bill Number 19 Dated 27.05.2014 of M/s Durga
Prasad Makhan Lal, Badaun for Rs.4,92,880.
ii. GR No.1418 Dated 27.05.2014 of M/s Gupta
Roadways Commission Agency, Badaun.
iii. Mandi Bilsi Badaun Gate Pass Number 01885/0189
Dated 27.05.2014.
iv. Mandi Bilsi Badaun Bill Number 0342 Dated
27.05.2014.
v. Weighment Slip Number 35204.
vi. Purchasers Import Form (Form XVI) Number UK
VAT-M-2012-0316904.
vii. Hard copy of Trip Sheet bearing Number
UKTS051412155584 through which the information relating
to this import was uploaded on the departmental website."
4. The said consignment was intercepted by Assistant
Commissioner Mobile Squad (Rudrapur), and a show-cause
notice was issued on the basis of incomplete Form XVI. The
revisionist gave reply to the show-cause notice (Annexure-1),
and took a plea that the goods being imported were strictly
according to the invoice and the weighment slip and there
was no concealment of facts. The revisionist had supplied
Form XVI in duplicate to the seller of the goods and Form XVI
was duly signed by the revisionist and the truck number was
also mentioned in it. There was a human error on the part of
the supplier where certain columns of the form could not be
fulfilled. Being dissatisfied with the reply filed by the
revisionist, the value of the goods was estimated to be
Rs.5,66,812/-, and under Section 48 of the VAT Act, demand
of security of Rs2,26,725/- (40% of the value of the goods)
was raised from the revisionist.
5. Against the order of seizure, the revisionist went
into appeal before the Joint Commissioner (SIB/
Enforcement) Commercial Tax, Kumaon Zone, Rudrapur, and
the Appellate Court, vide order dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure-
2), reduced the demand from 40% to 10%.
6. Against the order of the Joint Commissioner, the
revisionist went in Second Appeal before the Member,
Commercial Tax Tribunal, Haldwani Bench, and vide order
dated 11.06.2014 (Annexure-3), the Second Appeal was
dismissed. In the above background, the above questions of
law, at the time of admission, have to be examined.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has produced a
copy of order dated 23.05.2017, passed by the Assessing
Officer, whereby with respect to the same assessment year,
all the documents of sale and purchase of the goods have
been accepted while passing the assessment order, and even
the goods were released without furnishing any personal
bond of Rs.56,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been
able to dispute the order passed by the Assessing Officer,
which has attained finality.
9. A perusal of the order nowhere shows that with
respect to the goods in transit, there is any intension of
evasion of tax, and the Assessing Officer has accepted the
invoice and weighment slip and has finalized the assessment
order. Since the Assessing Officer has accepted all the
documents presented before him by the revisionist, the
impugned order demanding security of Rs.2,26,725/- (40% of
the value of goods) is liable to be set-aside.
10. In view of the above, the present revision is being
allowed, and the order dated 31.05.2014 and the order dated
11.06.2014 are being set- aside.
11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed.
(RITU BAHRI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 05th August, 2024
NISHANT
