Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (6) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judicial discretion of the authorities/tribunal, no question of law in connection thereto arises leaving any scope for interference in the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. - Decided against the assessee. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 278 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2011 - Pankaj Mithal ,JJ. For the Petitioner : Piyush Agrawal, Bharat Ji Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER The revisionist is a registered dealer under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (herein after referred as Act) as well as Central Sales Tax Act and is engaged in the manufacturing of Pan Masala from its factory situate in industrial area Fazalganj, Kanpur. Betel nut (Supari) is one of the raw material used by the revisionist in making Pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) of the Act vide order dated 1.3.2011 Annexure-12 to the revision. Aggrieved, revisionist preferred appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 26th March 2011, partly modified the order appealed against and directed for the release of the goods on revisionist furnishing security of twice the amount of the tax leviable on the said goods. Still not satisfied, the revisionist has preferred this revision assailing the orders of the Tribunal, Joint Commissioner, S.I.B., and of the seizing authority. Challenging the aforesaid orders the primary argument is as the goods were admittedly raw material which were not meant for sale in respect whereof all documents including Form 38 were duly furnished the seizure w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1(1) of the Act is satisfied that such taxable goods are being imported in an attempt evade payment of tax under this Act, he may order detention of goods for reasons recorded. By virtue of Section 51(5) of the provisions of Sub-Sections (3), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of Section 48 have been applied to such detention mutatis mutandis. Thus, Section 51 of the Act provides that the goods imported in U.P. must be accompanied by Import Declaration Form besides other documents, the Officer Authorized is empowered to detain the goods and that some of the subsections of Section 48 of the Act as enumerated above shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect to such detention. It may be noted that by virtue of Section 51(5) of the Act in respect of deten .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fficient to cover the penalty provided under Section 54 of the Act. The said provision does not empower the Commissioner to adjudicate about the validity of the seizure. It is worth noting that the direction issued in exercise of power under Section 48(7) of the Act is appellable before the Tribunal under Section 57(4) of the Act which obviously refers to the directions in connection with the release of the goods. Appeal to the Tribunal is not provided against the seizure order which is independent to direction for release of goods on security or without security. The appeal to the Tribunal under Section 57(4) of the Act is against the direction for the release of the goods on furnishing security of an amount sufficient to cover the pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f security but that would not mean that the seizure is invalid. The validity of seizure order cannot be adjudged on representation under Section 48(7) of the Act or in appeal before Tribunal. The scope of Section 48(7) of the Act or of an appeal against it under Section 57(4) of the Act before the Tribunal can not be enlarged to include within its fold the determination of the validity of the seizure order when it is not so provider under the statute. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the appeal before the Tribunal is directed against the direction issued with regard to security for release of goods under Section 48(7) of the Act only and not about the validity of the seizure order, the Tribunal has no authority to ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates