2011 (5) TMI 996 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Validity of seizure order, challenge in revision before High Court, interpretation of Section 60(b) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008.

Validity of seizure order: The revisionist, a trader dealing in betel nut, challenged the seizure of a consignment of Supari imported from Kerela. The Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad directed the seizure and release of goods on furnishing security. The revisionist's representation was rejected, leading to an appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal which directed for release on bank guarantee.

Challenge in revision before High Court: The revisionist questioned the validity of the seizure order and the demand for security. The High Court considered the issue of whether the validity of the seizure order or orders under relevant sections of the Act could be assailed in revision before the High Court.

Interpretation of Section 60(b) of the Act: Section 60(b) of the Act prohibits revision against any order of seizure of goods. The High Court noted conflicting Division Bench decisions regarding challenging seizure orders through writ petitions and the plea of alternative remedy. A Larger Bench was deemed necessary for a more authoritative pronouncement due to the importance and urgency of the matter.

This judgment highlights the significance of statutory provisions governing the challenge of seizure orders and the need for clarity on the scope of revision before the High Court in such matters.