TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners, namely, M/s. Kalyan Electronics and M/s. Kalyan Engineering Works. Both the petitioners are engaged in business at Agra. It is claimed, the first petitioner is manufacturing alternators while the second petitioner manufactures diesel engines. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 by their order dated 15th January, 1990, purporting to act under section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order, the second petitioner was required to supply eight diesel engines and some spare parts. As both these orders were from a common dealer, for convenience, the petitioners consigned the disputed goods by separate invoices but through a common carrier. Further, the case of the petitioners is, that the seizure was wrongly effected, inasmuch as the goods seized answered the description of articl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter, the petitioners moved the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., respondent No. 1 for appointment of an expert to find out whether the seized articles were generating sets capable of producing electricity or the said articles correspond to the articles mentioned in the two bills (annexures 5 and 6 to this writ petition) and other documents which accompanied the consignment seized. This request of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecting the appointment of experts as desired by the petitioners. That being so, we see no infirmity in the action of the Commissioner when he declined to accede to the petitioners' request for spot inspection by experts. Indeed the action of the Commissioner of Sales Tax has not been challenged in this writ petition. There is also no challenge to the action of seizure or the detention of goods. T....