Appealability of security orders under sales tax law upheld, and reduced security for seized goods was sustained.

An order requiring security for release of seized goods under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, made by a Sales Tax Officer deemed to be an assessing authority under the Rules, was held appealable under section 9(1) because the statutory bar in section 10-A(b) did not clearly extend to such orders. The court read the legislative scheme as preserving the appeal where no express exclusion applied. The reduced security fixed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was also sustained, as the record did not justify the higher amount and no infirmity in that factual assessment was shown. The revision was therefore unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order requiring security for release of seized goods under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was appealable under section 9(1). (ii) Whether the security amount fixed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) required interference.

Issue (i): Whether an order requiring security for release of seized goods under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was appealable under section 9(1).

Analysis: A Sales Tax Officer authorised to act under section 13-A and deemed to be an assessing authority by rule 5(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules makes an order when he requires security under section 13-A(6). Section 9(1) permits an appeal against any order of the assessing authority except those expressly barred by section 10-A. The bar in section 10-A(b) did not extend to an order under section 13-A(6), and the legislative changes showed that appeals were intended to remain available in such cases.

Conclusion: The order under section 13-A(6) was appealable, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the security amount fixed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) required interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the reduced security on the basis that the material on record did not justify the full amount demanded and that the possibility of penalty had not been satisfactorily established on the facts. No infirmity in that view was shown.

Conclusion: The reduction in the security amount was upheld, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the order demanding security was held to be appealable and the reduced security amount was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory officer deemed to be an assessing authority under the rules passes an order requiring security for release of seized goods, that order is appealable unless expressly barred, and the legislative scheme must be read so as to give effect to the appeal where the bar does not clearly apply.

---