https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164957 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. en-us Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164957 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164957