Sudhir Agarwal, J.@mdashHeard Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The revisionist''s goods carrier i.e. Truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 25G 9484 was intercepted by Assistant Commissioner/Commercial
Tax, Mobile Squad, 3rd Unit, Ghaziabad at Mohan Nagar on 22.3.2014 and he found several inconsistency in the document, as alleged, loaded in
the Truck. The number of items was mentioned in transit declaration form as ''1'' whereas total number of items found loaded actually are ''88''.
The seller firm, whose invoices were relied, in enquiry, was found nonest/non bona fide and therefore appeal was rejected.
3. There was no mention of weighment of truck in Column 19 of TDF-1 having been done at the Boarder. The nature of goods was mentioned in
the invoice as ""plastic toys"" while many cartons were found containing ""electronic LED toys"". The assessing authority formed opinion on the basis
of incorrect information that goods were imported in the State of U.P. with an intention to sell therein and evade payment of tax, therefore, he
proceeded u/s 50 read with 52 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ""Act, 2008""). A notice was issued to the revisionist
and after receiving reply, an order was passed seizing the goods. The revisionist was directed to deposit 40% of the value of the goods, as
security, for release thereof. Thereagainst, the matter was taken before Joint Commissioner u/s 48 of Act, 2008 but Joint Commissioner confirmed
order of Assessing Authority and revisionist''s second appeal has also been dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2014.
4. It is contended that mere discrepancies in the form will not justify seizure of the goods.
5. It is no doubt true that mere discrepancy in a form like Form 38 or any other document may not justify seizure and penalty proceedings but
when there are several other discrepancies also, it is cumulative effect of all, which has to be looked into. The opinion has been formed by Revenue
after taking wholesome consideration of all such discrepancies, omissions etc. on the part of dealer. In these facts and circumstances, it has formed
an opinion that there is an attempt on the part of dealer to evade payment of tax and if such an opinion on objective consideration has been
formed, it will not be open for this Court to sit in appeal and to decide whether such opinion has been formed correctly or not. Each and every
discrepancy on its own is not to be taken separately by process of elimination but it is a cumulative effect of all which has to be seen. It is true that
flimsy, artificial and so called artificial discrepancies ought/would not justify seizure and penalty proceedings but substantial, actual and material
discrepancies must exist therein.
6. In the case in hand, I find that not only serious discrepancy was found in the TDF Form but on actual verification from the goods loaded in the
truck, many other discrepancies, which are of sufficiently serious in nature, have been noticed. The authorities below having considered all these
aspects, have formed an opinion that there was an attempt on the part of dealer to evade tax. It cannot be said that opinion formed by Revenue is
without any basis whatsoever, or wholly imaginary or founded on no substantial material. In these facts and circumstances, in my view, no question
of law has arisen and this Court cannot convert revisional jurisdiction of this Court in appellate forum so as to exercise a coordinate appellate
jurisdiction over the orders in dispute.
7. The revision, therefore, is dismissed summarily.
