2010 (5) TMI 771 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Order passed under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 passed by respondent No. 2, annexure 9 to the writ petition, and further direction for the release of the seized goods challenged Held that - The order-sheet reveals that the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared on April 23, 2010 and argued the matter. His submission was duly recorded in the order-sheet. The contention of the petitioner that there is difference in the signature and the seal available in the order provided to the petitioner and in the copy of the order available in the record has also no substance. Several copies of the judgements are being prepared, which are being signed and seal are affixed separately. Variation in the place of signature and seal is obvious. It is not the case of the petitioner that the contents of the order available in the file and the order provided to the petitioner are different. Therefore, the submission is baseless and without any substance. Against the impugned order the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act before the Tribunal. Thus the writ petition is dismissed with cost of ₹ 5,000 which the petitioner shall pay within 30 days.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 48(7) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 & direction for release of seized goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, regarding seized goods. The petitioner claimed ownership of the goods seized by the Assistant Commissioner. Initially, an application under the proviso to section 48(7) was filed before the Joint Commissioner, which was not entertained due to the seizure order not being in the petitioner's name. A writ petition was filed, directing the Joint Commissioner to entertain the application and decide it promptly. The impugned order, dated April 24, 2010, passed by the Joint Commissioner, was challenged on grounds of being arbitrary and mala fide without a proper hearing opportunity. The petitioner argued discrepancies in the order dates and signatures, alleging lack of proper opportunity for defense.

The court examined the submissions and records, finding that the application was indeed entertained on April 22, 2010, and the petitioner was called to appear on April 23, 2010. The petitioner's counsel presented arguments on the merits on April 23, 2010, and the order was subsequently passed on April 24, 2010. Despite this timeline, the petitioner contended that no proper opportunity was given, which the court found baseless. Discrepancies in signatures and seals on different copies of the order were explained as routine administrative variations in document preparation, with no impact on the order's contents.

The court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal the impugned order under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act before the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the petitioner, payable within 30 days. Failure to pay would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.