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

2011 (5) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice No.861 dated 27.1.11. It was intercepted and detained on 17.2.2011 by the mobile squad near Fatehpur. After a show cause notice dated 18.2.2011 was issued, on consideration of the reply, the Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad vide order dated 21.2.2011 directed for the seizure of the consignment and permitted the same to be released on furnishing security in cash equivalent to 40% of the estimated value of the goods. The representation of the revisionist against the aforesaid order under Section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008, (hereinafter referred as Act) was rejected on 11.3.2011 by the Joint Commissioner (SIB) Commercial Taxes, Allahabad. Aggrieved by the said order revisionist preferred an appeal before the Commer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Act to the Tribunal is only provided against the direction issued for release of goods under proviso to Section 48(7) of the Act. Thus when appeal is confined to adjudicating the correctness of the directions only them in revision against the appellate order validity of the seizure can not be gone into. The view taken above is in consonance with Section 60(b) of the Act which had escaped my notice and was not brought to my knowledge by either of the parties while hearing the case of Pan Parag India Ltd. (supra). Section 60(b) of the Act reads as under:- Section 60. Orders against which no appeal or revision shall lie:- No appeal and no application for revision shall lie against- (a)............... (b) any order or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to be seen and the principle of harmonious construction is not to be applied where there is no conflict or ambiguity in the provisions of the Act and they are plain and clear in language. In view of above, I consider that the matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench for a more authoritative pronouncement. As large number of cases assailing the validity of the seizure orders are being filed everyday the matter is of great importance and urgency which need to be tackled with utmost swiftness. Let the papers of this revision along with connected matters be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court for decision of the question whether the v .....

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