JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal - The revisionist, M/s. RBBRL contractors, New Delhi and Shree Krishna Trading Company, Patna, has jointly filed Commercial Tax Revision No. 272 of 2011 challenging the seizure of goods under sections 50 and 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. The Revenue has filed Commercial Tax Revision No. 272 of 2011 in connection with the above seizure challenging the order of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2011 directing for release of goods on deposit of twice the tax leviable on the goods so seized. Since both the revisions relate to the same transaction of seizure they have been taken together. Counsel for the parties also agreed for their disposal together on the merits at the very outset. M/s. RBBRL contractor is a transporter whereas M/s. Shree Krishna Trading Company is a registered dealer of Bihar under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act. A consignment of 208 packets of footwear was said to be in transit from Delhi to Patna by means of a truck, registration No. BL-1 DB/6777. The owner/driver of the vehicle on entering U.P. at Ghaziabad downloaded the transit declaration form from the official website of the Commercial Tax Department, U.P. on February 1, 2011 with the date of exit from U.P. as February 5, 2011. The said transit declaration form clearly mentioned the entry point in U.P. to be Ghaziabad and Naubatpur as the exit point with two intervening prominent points. The consignment of goods, however, was detained on February 2, 2011 at Kannauj whereupon, after service of show-cause notice and on consideration of reply, seizure order was passed on February 10, 2011. The representation under section 48(7) of the Act against the seizure order was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (SIB) Commercial Tax, Etawah on February 22, 2011 against which second appeal was preferred before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur. The appeal was partly allowed and upholding the seizure, the goods were directed to be released on furnishing cash security of twice the amount of tax on the estimated value of the goods seized. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists in CTR No. 272 of 2011 and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists in CTR No. 272 of 2011 and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. The basic argument of Sri Agrawal is that no case for seizure of goods under sections 50 and 52 of the Act has been made out. Therefore, the authorities below including the Tribunal have erred jurisdictionally in upholding the seizure. He has further argued that no seizure could be made on the mere presumption that the goods in transit are likely to be sold in U.P. His further contention is that the goods were duly accompanied by all the necessary documents and there is no infringement either of section 52 of the Act or rule 58 of the Rules. On the other hand, the submission of Sri Pandey is that the vehicle in question had previously downloaded transit declaration form on January 4, 2011, January 15, 2011 and January 25, 2011. Therefore, it was not possible for the said vehicle to have carried the goods from Delhi to Patna again when earlier it had travelled from Delhi to Patna and had passed through U.P. between January 25, 2011 and January 28, 2011. Secondly, the bilty was made first and thereafter the invoice which is against the settled practice. Thirdly, there is discrepancy in the weight of the consignment. Lastly, the dealer was not registered for dealing in footwear. Secondly, the bilty was made first and thereafter the invoice which is against the settled practice. Thirdly, there is discrepancy in the weight of the consignment. Lastly, the dealer was not registered for dealing in footwear. All these factors also lead the Department to believe that the goods are not actually sent outside U.P., rather are likely to be sold in U.P. Section 52 of the Act relates to the goods passing through the State of U.P. It provides that the vehicle carrying goods from outside the State and bound for any other place outside the State of U.P., while passing through the State of U.P. shall carry such documents as may be prescribed, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods are meant for sale within the State of U.P. Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Act also makes a similar provision and puts an obligation upon the driver or the person incharge of the vehicle carrying the goods to follow such procedure as may be determined from time to time and to carry such documents as may be prescribed by the Commissioner failing which it shall be presumed that the goods carried are meant for sale within the State. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., in view of abolition of check-posts, vide circular dated July 27, 2009 and July 30, 2009 provided that with effect from July 30/31, 2009 all vehicles carrying goods and passing through the State of U.P. will have to carry a new transit declaration form which could be downloaded from the Departments' website comtax.up.nic.in. This transit declaration form would be in addition to the relevant documents such as bill, bilty, etc., and that it will contain the route from which the vehicle would pass giving the entry and exit points and a minimum of two other important points from which it is likely to pass in U.P. Thus, it is only if the goods passing through the State of U.P. are not accompanied by the documents prescribed that a presumption of sale within the State would arise and not otherwise. Section 48 of the Act empowers the authorities to seize the goods. Section 48 of the Act empowers the authorities to seize the goods. The seizure can be made if the goods are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts, registers and other documents maintained in ordinary course of his business or if the goods are not accompanied by the relevant documents provided or where the goods have been undervalued to the extent of more than 50 per cent of the prevalent value of the goods in the local market area. It is not the case of the Department that the goods were not accounted for or that they were not accompanied by the necessary documents prescribed or that the documents were not in order or not properly filled. It is not even the case that the goods were undervalued or that they were being loaded or unloaded in the State of U.P. which may have give a legitimate presumption of their being sold in U.P. It is also pertinent to note that the goods were detained prior to the expiry of the time of exit of the goods from U.P. as declared in the transit declaration form. In the case of Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2006] 143 STC 493 (All); [2003] 23 NTN 1009, which was a case under the U.P. Trade Tax Act having identical provisions pari materia with that of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act in respect of search and seizure of goods, this court clearly laid down that where there is no case that the goods were being unloaded or loaded within the State of U.P. that too during the period in which they had to pass from U.P., the same cannot be seized prior to the expiry of time of exit disclosed in the relevant form. The law laid down in the aforesaid case has been followed in the case of Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. v. New Golden Transport Company [2010] 44 NTN 245 wherein it has been laid down that the goods cannot be seized before the expiry of time of exit declared in the transit declaration form. The law laid down in the aforesaid case has been followed in the case of Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. v. New Golden Transport Company [2010] 44 NTN 245 wherein it has been laid down that the goods cannot be seized before the expiry of time of exit declared in the transit declaration form. In the case of Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Yusuf Jhansi through S.S. Raja Trading Company [2010] 43 NTN 342 it has been held that where the goods are accompanied by all the documents the same cannot be seized unless there is a positive or constrictive evidence to prove that the goods were loaded from a place inside U.P. The corollary of the above is that the seizure cannot be made until and unless there is a positive evidence to show that the goods while on transit through U.P. are loaded from U.P. or are unloaded in U.P. to demonstrate their sale or purchase within the State of U.P. In view of the aforesaid legal position, as it is not the case of the Department that the goods were not duly accompanied by the necessary documents, in the absence of any finding of actual loading or unloading of the goods within the State of U.P., the Department was not justified to seize the goods that too before the expiry of period of exit mentioned in the transit declaration form. The past conduct of the transporter or the driver in obtaining transit declaration form and the doubt expressed about the possibility of said vehicle being again used within a short span for transporting goods from Delhi to Patna is not the relevant criteria for inferring that the present goods are likely to be sold in U.P., inasmuch as the actual use of vehicle for transportation of the present consignment is not in dispute. Moreover, the authenticity of the past transaction has neither been verified nor is the subject-matter of the present case. Similarly, learned counsel for the Department is unable to explain as to how the making of bilty and then the invoice would cast a doubt upon the authenticity of the transit of the goods. Even the discrepancy in the weight of consignment appears to be not relevant as there is no finding that the number of packets declared in transit form and other documents were found to be at variance. Even the discrepancy in the weight of consignment appears to be not relevant as there is no finding that the number of packets declared in transit form and other documents were found to be at variance. Thus no ground as contemplated under the Act for seizing the goods has been made out. The goods cannot be seized unless there is a good ground for seizure as per the provisions of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the seizure of the goods is ex facie in contravention of the Act and the authorities have erred in upholding the seizure. Sri Pandey at this stage, argued that once the seizure has been upheld up to the Tribunal the revisional court may not be justified in interfering with the order. True it is that the revisional jurisdiction is quite limited and may not be exercised for interfering with the finding of fact but in the present case it is not the finding recorded by the authorities below which is wrong, rather it is the jurisdictional error committed by the authorities in seizing the goods as no case for seizure of the goods was made out. Accordingly, the seizure order is liable to be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In view of above, I hold the order of seizure dated February 10, 2011, the order dated February 22, 2011 rejecting the representation under section 48(7) of the Act and that of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2011 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Once the seizure is held invalid, the issue as to whether the Tribunal was justified in directing for release of the goods on deposit of cash security twice the amount of tax leviable in place of 40 per cent of the estimated value of the goods, as provided under the Act, fails into oblivion and, as such, need not be addressed. In this view of the matter, the revision of the Department does not survive. Accordingly, revision No. 272 of 2011 is allowed. The impugned orders of seizure dated February 10, 2011, the order dated February 22, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Etawah, rejecting the representation under section 48(7) of the Act and that of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2011 passed in appeal No. 70 of 2011 are set aside and revision No. 273 of 2011 is dismissed.