https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344087 The revenue sought recall of the earlier interim order on the ground that the matter had been heard on a preponed date without reasonable opportunity and that relevant material about transport and the alleged vehicle breakdown had not been placed before the Court. It also invoked Section 58(5) of the U.P. VAT Act and asked that the earlier interim order and the later release order be reconsidered together. Notice was issued, the matter was directed to be relisted with the connected revision record, the order dated 15 May 2017 was kept in abeyance, and the seized goods were restrained from release until the next date except subject to the stated security conditions. en-us Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:00:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344087 The revenue sought recall of the earlier interim order on the ground that the matter had been heard on a preponed date without reasonable opportunity and that relevant material about transport and the alleged vehicle breakdown had not been placed before the Court. It also invoked Section 58(5) of the U.P. VAT Act and asked that the earlier interim order and the later release order be reconsidered together. Notice was issued, the matter was directed to be relisted with the connected revision record, the order dated 15 May 2017 was kept in abeyance, and the seized goods were restrained from release until the next date except subject to the stated security conditions. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344087