9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been seized by the Assistant Commissioner (Prabhari), Trade Tax, Mobile Squad, Fatehpur vide order dated April 16, 2010. Being aggrieved by the seizure order, the petitioner filed an application under the proviso to section 48(7) of the VAT Act before the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Allahabad on April 22, 2010. When the said application was pending, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 660 of 2010. When the aforesaid writ petition came up for consideration before the Bench on April 28, 2010, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Allahabad was not entertaining the application on the ground that the seizure order was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate counsel for the petitioner, appeared and made the submission and, thereafter, on April 24, 2010 the impugned order was passed rejecting the application which has been despatched on April 26, 2010. He further submitted that on the receipt of the order passed by this court dated April 28, 2010, the Joint Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Allahabad, has further provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on May 10, 2010 but the same has not been availed. On the aforesaid submission, Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested the Bench to take up the matter on May 13, 2010. When the matter was taken up, he submitted that the photostat copy of the order, which is annexed along with the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has been heard on April 23, 2010 and application has been decided on April 24, 2010 still the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application has not been entertained while there was no occasion to make such submission. The submission of the petitioner that the order has been passed without giving proper opportunity is without any substance. The order-sheet reveals that the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared on April 23, 2010 and argued the matter. His submission was duly recorded in the order-sheet. The contention of the petitioner that there is difference in the signature and the seal available in the order provided to the petitioner and in the copy of the order available in the record has also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
