Natural justice and statutory appeal remedy upheld in a seizure order challenge under VAT law.

A seizure-related order under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was upheld because the record showed that the petitioner was called, counsel appeared, and the merits were addressed before the order was made, so there was no denial of hearing. The Court also held that differences in the placement of the signature and seal did not indicate any difference in the contents of the order. Since an effective statutory appeal was available under section 57, writ relief was not warranted, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure-related order under section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was liable to be quashed for want of proper hearing and whether writ relief could be granted despite the statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The record showed that the application under section 48(7) was entertained, the petitioner was called upon to appear, and counsel appeared and addressed the merits before the order was passed. The Court found no substance in the complaint of denial of opportunity. It also rejected the objection based on differences in placement of signature and seal, holding that such variation did not show any difference in the contents of the order. The Court further noted that an effective statutory appeal lay under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---