https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342435 Seizure under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act was treated as a revenue-protection measure, and the authority was not required to finally decide whether the transaction was inter-State under Section 3(b) of the CST Act. The Tribunal's prima facie view that the ingredients of Section 3(b) were not established was not shown to be perverse, so the dealer could be treated as an unregistered dealer for the limited purpose of seizure and security. The release condition was then modified by linking cash security to the likely tax exposure and requiring indemnity bonds for the balance. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 May 2017 07:38:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342435 Seizure under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act was treated as a revenue-protection measure, and the authority was not required to finally decide whether the transaction was inter-State under Section 3(b) of the CST Act. The Tribunal's prima facie view that the ingredients of Section 3(b) were not established was not shown to be perverse, so the dealer could be treated as an unregistered dealer for the limited purpose of seizure and security. The release condition was then modified by linking cash security to the likely tax exposure and requiring indemnity bonds for the balance. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342435