https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156484 No statutory provision under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 or the Rules empowered the Commissioner to appoint experts to inspect seized goods on the petitioners' request, so the refusal could not be treated as without jurisdiction. Because the seizure and detention were not themselves challenged, the writ court declined to use its discretionary jurisdiction to secure expert evidence or pre-empt penalty proceedings. The petitioners were left to raise their objections in the appropriate penalty or assessment proceedings. The request for a writ directing appointment of experts was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 03 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:10:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156484 No statutory provision under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 or the Rules empowered the Commissioner to appoint experts to inspect seized goods on the petitioners' request, so the refusal could not be treated as without jurisdiction. Because the seizure and detention were not themselves challenged, the writ court declined to use its discretionary jurisdiction to secure expert evidence or pre-empt penalty proceedings. The petitioners were left to raise their objections in the appropriate penalty or assessment proceedings. The request for a writ directing appointment of experts was therefore rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 03 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156484