Holding

Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 confers limited jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere only with questions of law, and therefore the High Court’s interference with the Tribunal’s factual findings is impermissible.

Summary

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. sought revision of a seizure order on agro‑chemical drums, alleging that the goods loaded in a truck differed from those declared in the transit pass. The departmental authorities and the Trade Tax Tribunal found that the goods were indeed different and upheld the seizure. The Allahabad High Court, exercising its power under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, set aside the Tribunal’s findings and ordered the release of the goods. The appellant challenged the High Court’s interference, contending that Section 11 permits only interference on questions of law, not on factual determinations. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re‑examining the Tribunal’s factual findings, which are binding unless a legal error is shown. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with the Tribunal’s factual findings under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Whether the scope of Section 11 is limited to questions of law only.
Whether the Tribunal’s findings on the discrepancy of goods constitute a legal error warranting revision.

Legislation cited

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948s. 11, s. 13A(6)

Subjects

Section 11Trade TaxFact-findingTribunalHigh Court jurisdictionRevisionUttar PradeshAdministrative lawConcurrent findings of fact

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 431
f

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, {J.P. A
\/.
M/S. J.U. PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1603 of 2008),
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
B
~ . [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948: s.11 - Concurrent findings of
fact by departmental authorities and Tribunal - High Court
reversed the findings - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - c
High Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with order of
Tribunal only on question of' law, which js required to be
precisely stated and formulated.
'

The Departmental authorities and Tribunal recorded
.. a categorical finding that on a physical verification D
-.·
_,, although 99 drums of agrochemicals as per goods receipt
were found in the vehicle, but on comparing these goods
with the goods mentioned in the Invoice and Delivery
Note, different goods were also found in the vehicle. The
description of the goods as mentioned in the Trip Sheets E
were found not to be matching with those goods. The
High Court allowed the revision.
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that the
• scope of interference in a proceeding under the U.P. Trade
Tax Act, 1948 is very limited and that High Court can only F
interfere in the question of law and should not normally
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court ought not to have G
interfered with the orders of the departmental authorities
_,, • and the Tribunal, that too on the question of appreciation
of the factual aspects. The High Court has not analyzed
as to how the conclusions of the Tribunal suffer from any
431 H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R
~

A infirmity. If fact finding authority comes to certain
conclusions honestly and bonafide the mere fact that
Court may have a different perspective of that question,
cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding even
though another view may be possible. Considering the
B limited jurisdiction exercisable under s.11 of the U.P.
Trade Tax Act, 1948 such a course is not available.
[Para 12] [437-B, C, D] ••

Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P v. Kumaon Tractors &
Motors (2002) 9 SCC 379 - relied on.
c
1.2 S.11 of the Act confers limited jurisdiction to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal only on the question
of law, which is required to be precisely stated and
formulated. In the instant case, even that has not been
done. The High Court's order, which is clearly
D
indefensible, is set aside. [Para 12, 13] [437-D, E]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1603
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10/10/2006 of
E the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in TTR No. 694/2006.

Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Vibha Dwivedi, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao. Vishwajeet Singh and Vandana Mishra for
the Appellant.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order
dated 10. 10.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the
G Allahabad High Court in Trade Tax Revision No. 694 of 2006.
By the impugned order the learned Single Judge allowed the
Revision Petition filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh A
~

•
Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short the 'Act') and directed release
of certain goods which were seized without security and
H Rs.20,000/- was imposed as costs.
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. MIS. JU. 433
PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD. [PASAYAT, J.]

3. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows: A
The Check Post Officer posted at the Entry Check Post
Tamkuhiraj, District Deoria, in the State of Uttar Pradesh issued
transit Pass No.1006 dated 13.6.2005 in respect of the goods
carried in Truck No. HR-55A-4687. The same was presented
B
.-. before the Check Post Officer, Exit Check Post, Transport
Nagar, Ghaziabad on 15.6.2005. As per Transit Pass, 99 drums
of Agro Chemicals valued at Rs.59,87,142.85 were recorded.
These goods were shown to have been transported from Kapru
in Assam to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. A physical
verification of the goods loaded in the truck was carried out by c
the Check Post Officer posted at the Exit Check Post and it
was found that the goods relatable to the 99 drums of Agro
Chemicals were different from those covered by the Transit Pass
No. 1006. The officer posted at the check post issued show
.... cause notice No. 553 dated 15.6.2005. According to the officer, D
on a perusal of the goods in question it was clearly established
that the goods for which Trip Sheet No. 1006 dated 13.6.2005
was issued have been unloaded within the State of Uttar Pradesh
and in its place different goods have been loaded within the
State of Uttar Pradesh and such goods were being transported E
to a place outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was therefore
concluded that there was a sale which is taxable under the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Tax"). But
• under the garb of the said Trip Sheet No. 1006 dated 13.6.2005
different goods were being carried. Goods loaded in the truck F
were analysed in the Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research
Delhi. On receipt of the Analysis Report, part of the goods
weighing 375 kg. and valued at Rs.37,50,000/- were seized on
31.12.2005 and security to the extent of 40% of the value of the
seized goods i.e. Rs.15 lakhs was demanded for the release
G
of the goods as seized by the Check Post Officer. The dealer
.~
& was directed to disclose the identity of the remaining goods
which were detained. There was no response to the. query.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
31.12.2005, the respondent filed an application in terms of H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.

A Section 13A(6) of the Act for release of the goods without
payment of security before Deputy Commissioner (Check Post)
Trade Tax, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. The said Authority by order
dated 28.1.2006 rejected the application and affirmed the
Seizure Order as well as the demand of security for release of
B goods. Order passed under Section 13A(6) by the Deputy
Commissioner was challenged before the Tribunal, Trade Tax, .
Ghaziabad, Bench II (in short 'Tribunal'). Stand of the respondent
before the Tribunal was the Transit Pass has been issued from
the Entry Check Post on 13.6.2005 when the truck arrived at
c the Exit Check Post on 15.6.2005, after travelling the distance
of about 700 k.m. and it was not possible during such short
period for the truck driver to unload and sell the goods originally
loaded in the truck at the time of entering the State through the
Entry Check Post and thereafter to load other goods in the same
D vehicle from a place within the State of Uttar Pradesh before
crossing the State through the Exit Check Post. Tribunal rejected
the contention on the ground that the plea about possibility of
unloading and selling the goods was not acceptable. The
Tribunal observed that merely because the said vehicle had
covered a distance of 700 k.m. it could not be ruled out that as
E a part of the pre-planned strategy, the original goods could be
unloaded and in its place different goods could be loaded within
a short period of one or two hours. The Tribunal observed that
whether the goods loaded in the vehicles were those very goods
which were available in the vehicle at the time of entry of the
F vehicle at the Check Post as a fact which could be ascertained
only after the through examination of the documents presented
at the Exit Check Post as well as the physical verification of the
goods loaded in the vehicle at the time of inspection at the Exit
Check Post.
G
5. Tribunal noticed that the driver or the person in charge
of the goods loaded in the vehicles is required to stop the vehicle
at the Exit Check Post, surrender one copy of the Trip Sheet '
and allowed the officer posted at Exit Check Post to ensure
that the goods loaded in the vehicle are those very goods which
H
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. MIS. J.U. 435
PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD. [PASAYAT, J.]

are covered by the Trip Sheet and for the said purposes, the A
relevant account Books connected with the goods and its
transportation shall, if necessary, are required to be produced
for examination by the officer. Reference was made to Rule 87(3)
of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (in short the 'Rules')
to observe that the officer posted at the Check Post is not only B
supposed to count the number of drums as disclosed in the Trip
• • Sheet, but is supposed to satisfy himself after examining the
relevant documents, consignment and the goods that the goods
being transported outside the State of U.P. are those very goods
which were loaded in the truck at the time of its entry at the Entryc
Check Post and as mentioned in the Trip Sheet.
6. A categorical finding was recorded that on a physical
verification although 99 drums of agro Chemicals as per goods
receipt were found in the vehicle, but on comparing these goods
with the goods mentioned in the Invoice No. 33 dated 3.6.2005 D
and Delivery Note No. 034 dated 3.6.2005, different goods were
found in the vehicle. The description of the goods as mentioned
in the Trip Sheets were found not to be matching with those
goods because of the following factors:
(i) The goods receipt was originally made for dispatch E
of 126 drums as is shown in the invoice No. 33 dated
03.06.2005 comprising of lmmida Cloprid contained in
60 cases of 50 liters each and Acetamiprid contained in
.. 66 cases of 50 kg each. The total of these drums thus
comes to 126 as shown in the goods receipt. F
(ii) Not only this, the weight of these 126 drums also comes
to 6300 kg as was originally shown in the goods receipt.
(iii) Out of these 126 drums only 99 drums are said to
have been actually dispatched subsequently. The weight G
of the chemicals @ 50 kg per case in these 99 cases
comes to 4950 kg and if the weight of the containers itself
•
is added to it, the weight of these 99 drums comes to
5100 kg as has been subsequently mentioned in the
goods receipt itself. H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A (iv) There is a reference of goods receipt No'. 6401589 on
the Delivery Note No. 034 dated 03.06.2005 itself and as
such the said delivery note cannot be held to be related
with some other goods receipt.

(v) The said goods receipt No. 6401589is clearly
B mentioned in the Trip Sheet No. 1006 dated 13.06.2005.

(vi) In the column of Private Mark in the goods receipt No. • •
6401589, there is a reference of 034 which is the number
of Delivery Note itself.

C (vii) There is, it is true, no reference of invoice number and
date on the Trip Sheet no. 1006 dated 13.6.2005, but the
simple reason for it is that there is no column provided in
the Trip Sheet for this purpose.

D 7. The Tribunal also noted that transportation of 126 drums
against Goods Receipt No. 6401589 has been shown in Trip
Sheet was obtained in respect of 99 drums from Entry Check
Post Tamkuhiraj and the same refers to Delivery Note no.034
dated 3.6.2005 and on a physical verification, the goods which
E were found were different from those covered by the Delivery
Note. It was also noted that the respondents were not prepared
to disclose the identity of goods in spite of grant of opportunity.

8. Respondent challenged the findings of the Tribunal in
the Revision filed before the High Court, which as noted above,
F allowed it. •
9. The basic stand of the appellant is that the scope of
interference in a proceeding under the Act is very limited; it can
only interfere in the question of law and should not normally
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
G
10. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
spite of service of notice.
11. The factual findings recorded by the High Court have
been noted above. Additionally, the High Court does not appear
H to have appreciated that in the goods Receipt no. 6401589
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. M/S. J.U. 437
PESTICIDES & CHEMICAL P. LTD. [PASAYAT, J]
t
dated 9.6.2005 in the Column of "Private Mark", the Entry is A
034 and in the Column of "Value", the entry is Rs.76,20,000/-.
The figures "034" and "Rs.76,20,000" are the Delivery Note
No.34 and the value of the goo.ds is Rs.76,20,000/-, as
mentioned in the Delivery Note.
12. Above being the factual position the High Court ought B
., .. not to have interfered with the orders of the departmental
authorities and the Tribunal, that too on the question of
appreciation of the factual aspects. The High Court has not
analyzed as to how the conclusions of the Tribunal as noted
above suffer from any infirmity. If fact finding authority comes to c
certain conclusions honestly and bonafide the mere fact that
Court may have a different perspective of that question, cannot
be a ground to interfere with the finding even though another
view may be possible. Considering the limited jurisdiction
exercisable under Section 11 of the Act, such a course is not D
.... available. As noted by this Court in Commissioner of Sa/es
Tax, UP v. Kumaon Tractors & Motors (2002 (9) SCC 379),
Section 11 of the Act confers limited jurisdiction to interfere with
the order of the Tribunal only on the question of law, which is
required to be precisely stated and formulated. In the instant E
case, even that has not been done.
13. The High Court's order, which is clearly indefensible,
is set aside.

• 14. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs . F
D.G. Appeal allowed .

..