9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 396 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeizure of goods - Default in payment of VAT - Held that - Assessment order is passed on 31/3/2015 however, the appeal has been preferred by the petitioner on 27/5/2015 i.e. within period of 60 days provided under the Act. It is also pertinent to note that goods are already released pursuant to the order passed by this Court. It is pertinent to note that the authority had seized the goods before expiry of period of limitation prescribed under section 73(4) of the Act. Therefore, in our view, the authority could not have seized the goods under the provisions of section 68 and 69 of the Act. Therefore, we accept the petition. The order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 26/5/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Challenge to order of seizure of goods under VAT Act
Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order seizing goods under sections 68 & 69 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, due to alleged default in VAT payment. The petitioner argued that the seizure was based on grounds not listed under the Act and that the assessment order's limitation period had not expired before the seizure. An appeal against the recovery was already pending. The petitioner was granted interim relief, and the goods were released upon filing an undertaking. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with authorities and appear for the appeal hearing. The respondent contended that the authority had the power to seize goods under sections 44 and 45 of the Act for non-payment of tax. However, considering the appeal filed within the limitation period, the petitioner was asked to appear before the appellate authority. The court observed that the impugned order was based on the petitioner's tax default, even though it was passed under sections 68 & 69. The assessment order was issued before the appeal was filed within the prescribed 60-day period. The goods had already been released by the court, and the authority seized them before the limitation period under section 73(4) of the Act. Consequently, the court found the seizure unlawful and quashed the order dated 26/5/2015. The court clarified that the petitioner must adhere to the undertaking filed and cooperate with the appeal hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on 13/7/2015 and participate in the proceedings. The rule was made absolute to the specified extent.
|
