9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments are being prepared, which are being signed and seal are affixed separately. Variation in the place of signature and seal is obvious. It is not the case of the petitioner that the contents of the order available in the file and the order provided to the petitioner are different. Therefore, the submission is baseless and without any substance. Against the impugned order the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act before the Tribunal. Thus the writ petition is dismissed with cost of ₹ 5,000 which the petitioner shall pay within 30 days. - 731 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2010 - RAJES KUMAR AND BHARATI SAPRU, JJ. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a period of one week from the date of furnishing of the certified copy of the order. The impugned order which is being challenged in the present writ petition is dated April 24, 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Allahabad on the merits. The writ petition came up for consideration on May 12, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order is patently arbitrary and full of mala fide without giving opportunity of hearing. He submitted that the impugned order was signed on April 24, 2010 at the last page, however, on the top of the first page April 26, 2010 is mentioned. On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petition. However, he is not able to show any difference in the contents of the order. He further submitted that the order has been passed without giving proper opportunity. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We are of the view that the order dated April 28, 2010 has been obtained by concealing the facts. The record reveals that the application under section 48(7) of the VAT Act was entertained by the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Allahabad on April 22, 2010 itself and the petitioner was called upon to appear on April 23, 2010. Shri Durga Prasad, advocate counsel for the petitioner, appeared on April 23, 2010 before the Joint Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
