Neeraj Tiwari vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court, while acknowledging the controversy regarding the route of detention, chose not to delve into the merits of the case due to the goods being detained for over 14 months and being perishable. The Court directed the revisionist (Neeraj Tiwari) to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and furnish security for another Rs. 5 lakhs. Upon compliance, the seizing authority was ordered to release the goods and permit their transport to the destination. The respondents were directed to allow the revisionist to download a fresh E-way bill (as prescribed under UPGST/CGST law) and get it endorsed at the exit point. After delivery, the revisionist must submit relevant documents to the appropriate authority, who shall examine them and pass an order within 30 days. The authority near the exit point at Chandauli was directed to verify the movement of goods from the border. Both revision petitions were disposed of without entering into the merits.

Facts

This case involves two revision petitions concerning the detention of goods, specifically Gambier, transported by Neeraj Tiwari. The goods were detained by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Commercial Tax, Unit 7, Kanpur on June 24, 2017. At the time of detention, no driver was present, and the vehicle was found to have mechanical defects. No documents were initially available. A Transit Declaration Form (TDF) generated on June 23, 2017, indicated an entry point date of June 23, 2017, and a departure date of June 26, 2017. The petitioner, Neeraj Tiwari, claims the detention was illegal as the vehicle was on its declared route. The revenue contended otherwise, citing findings from lower authorities and the Tribunal. This is the second round of litigation, with a previous revision petition being disposed of by remitting the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration regarding the TDF dates and the valuation of goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention and seizure proceedings are illegal, considering the vehicle was allegedly passing through its declared route as per the Transit Declaration Form (TDF)? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of TDF and detention provisions). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner, Neeraj Tiwari, argued that the detention and seizure were wholly illegal because the vehicle was detained while it was on the route specified in the TDF. The TDF indicated the vehicle's entry into Uttar Pradesh on June 23, 2017, and its exit on June 26, 2017. Therefore, detention on June 24, 2017, should have been permissible as it fell within the declared transit period. Revenue's argument: The learned Standing Counsel for the revenue contended that the petitioner's submission was incorrect. The revenue relied on findings recorded by the authorities below and the Tribunal, which indicated that the vehicle was detained from a different route than the one declared in the TDF. The revenue did not explicitly name any specific provisions or precedents in this regard.