https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181894 Section 60(b) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was read as expressly barring appeal or revision against an order of seizure of goods, and the Court noted conflicting views on whether the validity of such seizure could still be examined under the Act. Because the statutory language was considered plain and the scope of challenge remained disputed, the matter was not finally determined on merits in the revisional order. Instead, it was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to authoritatively resolve the question. en-us Mon, 09 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:24:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181894 Section 60(b) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was read as expressly barring appeal or revision against an order of seizure of goods, and the Court noted conflicting views on whether the validity of such seizure could still be examined under the Act. Because the statutory language was considered plain and the scope of challenge remained disputed, the matter was not finally determined on merits in the revisional order. Instead, it was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to authoritatively resolve the question. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 09 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181894