2009 (11) TMI 877 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of seizure challenged - Held that - Force in the argument of learned standing counsel for the Department that the question of validity of the seizure order can be gone into by the authority concerned. An order passed under the said proviso is appealable under section 57(4) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act before the Tribunal. It goes without saying that the order passed by the Tribunal is revisable by the High Court. This being so, we are of the opinion that the adequate alternative remedy has been provided for, under the Act. Thus dismiss the present writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

Issues:
1. Seizure order passed on different grounds than mentioned in the show-cause notice.
2. Applicability of alternative remedy under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the proviso under section 48(7) and its implications on challenging the validity of the seizure order.
4. Harmonious construction of provisions under section 48(7) and section 60 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a seizure order issued under section 48 of the Value Added Tax Act, contending that it was based on grounds not mentioned in the show-cause notice. The petitioner argued that the goods were meant for export and should be exempt from tax liability under relevant provisions. The court considered the submissions and perused the record to determine the validity of the seizure order.

2. The court examined section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, which provides for seizure of goods and the release process. It was highlighted that the Commissioner or an authorized officer can direct the release of goods without any deposit under sufficient reasons. The court emphasized that the Act provides for an adequate alternative remedy through appeal before the Tribunal, which is revisable by the High Court. Therefore, the court found that the petitioner had an available remedy under the Act.

3. The court addressed the petitioner's argument that challenging the validity of the seizure order was not possible under the proviso of section 48(7). The court clarified that the authority empowered under the proviso could examine the validity of the seizure order before determining the deposit amount for releasing the goods. The court agreed with the Department's counsel that the authority could assess the validity of the seizure order.

4. Lastly, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy for the petitioner as provided under the Act. The court directed the authority concerned to pass an appropriate order for releasing the seized goods within three days of the petitioner filing an application. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the interpretation of section 48(7) would render section 60 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act redundant, emphasizing the need for a harmonious construction of provisions for a comprehensive understanding of the law.

By analyzing the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the seizure order, the alternative remedy under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, the interpretation of the proviso, and the harmonious construction of relevant provisions, the court provided a detailed judgment outlining the legal principles and procedures applicable in the case.

← Previous Next →