2016 (5) TMI 665 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking quash of suspension of registration order and Seizure order - Section 17(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Petitioner contended that under section 17(12) of the Act, it is only when the cancellation proceedings are pending under sub-section (11) that the registering authority can suspend the registration certificate but as in the instant case, no proceedings for cancellation of the registration certificate were pending initially under section 17(11) of the Act when the order of suspension was passed. Held that - when the order of suspension was passed on 11 March 2016, cancellation proceedings were not pending against the petitioner. This is in the teeth of the provisions of section 17(12) of the Act. The suspension order dated 11 March 2016, therefore, cannot be sustained. So far as the seizure order is concerned, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing a representation under section 48(7) and thereafter an appeal under section 57 of the Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to examine the order seizing the goods of the petitioner. The impugned order is quashed. - Decided partly in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of the order suspending registration under section 17(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
2. Quashing of the seizure order issued under section 48 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the validity of the order suspending the registration of the petitioner under section 17(12) of the Act. The petitioner contended that since no cancellation proceedings were pending under section 17(11) at the time of the suspension order, it should be set aside. The court examined the relevant provisions of section 17, which deal with registration of dealers, cancellation of registration certificate under sub-section (11), and suspension of registration certificate under sub-section (12). The court noted that the suspension order was passed when no cancellation proceedings were pending, contrary to the requirements of section 17(12). Consequently, the court held that the suspension order dated 11 March 2016 could not be sustained and quashed it.

2. The second issue pertained to the seizure order issued under section 48 of the Act. The court highlighted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available to challenge the seizure order by filing a representation under section 48(7) and subsequently an appeal under section 57 of the Act. While the court refrained from delving into the merits of the seizure order, it directed that if the petitioner files a representation along with a certified copy of the court's order, a decision should be made expeditiously within a week from the representation's filing. Therefore, the court did not review the seizure order but provided a pathway for the petitioner to address it through the statutory remedies available.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad quashed the order dated 11 March 2016 suspending the petitioner's registration under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The court allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated and directed a prompt decision on any representation filed by the petitioner regarding the seizure order.