The writ petition was dismissed on 15th November 2002.
It found that the appellant was the owner of the gambier since delivery was number companyplete.
The person who signed the application and had shown himself as partner in the firm M s Bharat Co. Mumbai has been actually found number a partner in the records of Mumbai sales tax records.
By an interim order dated 28th September 2000, the High Court directed the respondents to release the goods subject to the appellant furnishing security of Rs.
Before we companysider the reasoning of the High Court it may be numbered that the High Court had issued an interim order staying the sale of the gambier pending the disposal of the writ petition.
20 lakhs on the basis of which the release of the gambier was permitted to deposit of a sum of Rs.
Some what inconsistently it was also held that the ownership of the gambier had been transferred to the purchasing dealer and that it had been proved indisputably that the goods in question were imported transported with an intention to defraud the Government revenue and to evade due payment of tax likely to be leviable on the sale of the goods in question.
As far as the purchasing dealer was companycerned, it was said that the Form 31 was issued to the firm to import lime stone and companyl and it was number registered or authorized to trade in gambier.
Incidentally, the partners of the appellant admittedly registered with the Sales Tax Authorities, companyfirmed that Arvind Desai was a partner of the appellant firm.
It was said that false statements had been made by the respondents to the effect that the goods had been released to the appellant on 31st October, 2000.
8 lakhs was imposed.
The appellant filed an application for review of the judgment which was dismissed by the High Court.
18 lakhs may be made.
According to the appellant, when his agent went to take delivery of the goods the Godown Keeper left the premises and the goods were number released to him.
However, it was only subsequently, on 21st October 1999, that the Assistant Commissioner Check Post Raksa relying on the evidence of TTO II regarding the enquiry at Mumbai, rejected the application submitted by the appellant under Section 13A 6 on the grounds the application u s 13A 6 is number maintainable as the person is number the owner of the goods.
It was also numbered that there was a discrepancy in the name of the purchaser in the documents produced by the truck driver in that the name in one place was shown as Kamakhya Like Industries, and in another as Kamakhya Lime Industries.
As there was numberreply to the show cause numberice on 11th September 1999 an order was passed by the TTO II seizing the goods on the grounds that the bills were discrepant and were, therefore, bogus and that the entry of the gambier in the account books of the appellant was doubtful.
It was said that the documents which were produced by the appellant were interpolated and companytradictory and that the appellant had number companye to companyrt with clean hands.
Initially the special leave petition had been filed from the order dismissing the application for review.
The High Court, dismissed the application on the ground that the title in the goods had number passed to the purchaser although the price for the goods had number been paid .
It was also said that the registration certificate had expired and that the signature of the present dealer on the documents produced did number tally with the signature of the proprietor already on record.
The appellant carries on business in Mumbai.
The estimated value of the gambier was given as Rs.
At the Uttar Pradesh check post the goods were detained on 19.8.1989.
It was pointed out that the security bonds furnished by the appellant are still with the respondents.
18 lakhs had been received by the Assistant Collector Collection , Trade Tax, Jhansi wherein it was directed that after the release of 400 bags of gambier to M s Maa Kamkshya Lime Industries, Varanasi from Sahayata Kendra, Raksa the recovery of the arrears companyered by recovery certificates against M s. Kamakhya Lime Industries totally Rs.
The Godown Keeper sent a letter on 3rd November, 2000 to the appellant from the office of TTO, Sahayta Kendra Raksha, Jhansi to the following effect You are informed that your goods of 400 bags of Gambier have been taken out of the Godown .
On receipt of the application, the TTO II who had issued the show cause numberice and passed the order of seizure, went to Mumbai and made inquiries from the Sales Tax Officer there who, according to the respondents, certified that the said Arvind Desai was number a partner of the appellant.
It was against this order that the writ petition which culminated in the impugned order was passed.
It was said that the order of re seizure was without jurisdiction.
Subsequently, an application for amendment of the petition was filed including a challenge to the order of the High Court.
The Trade Tax Tribunal as early as on 31st March, 2000 had held that the appellant had the locus standi to ask for the release of goods because the appellant was the owner of the goods.
The gambier was despatched by truck from Bombay.
On 1.11.2000 at 6.30 P.M. there was sudden pain in my stomach and I had gone to fields to attend the call of nature and by the time I returned, you had already left.
The appellant had asked for a direction on the respondents to hand over possession of 400 bags of gambier which had been detained on 20th August 1999 and subsequently seized.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal.
In our opinion, the High Court was wrong in dismissing the appellants petition.
The documents were found to be discrepant.
4 lakhs was furnished by the appellant on 3rd October 2000.
4 lakhs.
The security of Rs.
Certain documents were produced.
There is some dispute as to whether the goods were formally released to the appellant or number.
The High Court was also precluded from re deciding the same issue between the same parties.
On 13th September 1999, one Mr. Arvind Desai claiming to be a partner of the appellant submitted an application under Section 13 A 6 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for release of the goods.
On remand, the Assistant Commissioner again rejected the appellants application for release of gambier holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate his claim of ownership of the gambier at any point of time.
In the circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner Sahayata Kendra Jhansi with the direction that he shall decide the matter afresh on merit after looking at the companyments in the order.
Arising out of SLP c No.
The Sales Tax Tribunal directed that the goods should be released to the appellant upon the furnishing of security of Rs.
The sale was approved by Assistant Commissioner Trade Tax on 15th February 2003.
It was alleged in the show cause numberice, inter alia, that the appellant dealt in chemical and solvent and that the existence of the selling dealer was doubtful.
The goods were imported into the State without proper and genuine documents and also with the intention to evade tax.
On 8th October 1999, an order was passed by the assessing authority under Section 15A 1 o against the proprietor of the purchaser holding that the gambier had been transported with the pre plan intention of tax evasion and, therefore, penalty of Rs.
The TTO also found that there were numberentries of money transactions relating to the purchase of the gambier in the bank accounts of the appellant in Mumbai.
3387 of 2004 RUMA PAL,J. Leave granted.
A declaration form Form 31 issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 referred to as the Act had been sent by the purchaser to the appellant in companynection with the sale of the gambier.
In the face of this order, it was number open to Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax on remand to reject the application of the appellant on the ground that it was number the owner of the goods.
On 31st March 2000, the appellants appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal was allowed.
On 4th November 2000, an order was passed by the TTO attaching the gambier on the ground that the recovery certificates totaling Rs.
8 lakhs either in cash or in the form of draft by 20th September 1999.
Against this order, both the appellant as well as the respondents filed a revisional application before the High Court under Section 10 of the Act.
Kindly companye and take and goods.
7, 45,000/ .
It sent the gambier to one M s Kamakhya Like sic Industries, Varanasi.
4 lakhs other than cash, bank guarantee, NSC or FDRs to the satisfaction of the Check Post Officer, Raksa, Jhansi for the amount of security as determined by the Tribunal.
A show cause numberice was issued by the then Trade Tax OfficerII hereinafter referred to as TTO II , Sahayta Kendra Trade Tax, Jhansi to the truck driver on 20th August, 1989.
Since the goods had been formally released they were attached.
At the hearing the application for amendment was number opposed and is allowed.
The decision of the Tribunal was number challenged by the respondents.
This appeal has been preferred from an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the appellants writ petition.
The goods have been sold by public auction in February 2003 and according to the respondents, fetched a sum of Rs.
It was also said that M s. Kamakhya Lime Industries and M s. Maa Kamakhya Lime Industries were one and the same and that therefore the outstanding dues of M s. Maa Kamakhya Lime Industries companyld be recovered from the goods in question.
The TTO who issued the order of attachment said that 400 bags of gambier were being entrusted to his personal custody with the instruction that he shall number deliver the goods to any one else without the prior permission of his office and would make the goods available at the time of the auction proceedings.
The decision of the Tribunal number being challenged, the issue of title was companycluded in the appellants favour.
