1994 (2) TMI 293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted, New Delhi, for supply of certain goods to its Calcutta branch. The applicant has its factory in Noida. The goods were taken from Noida to Delhi for being transported to Calcutta for delivery to M/s. Onida Saka Electronics Private Limited. At the entry check-post goods were seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, who demanded security for a sum of Rs. 1,04,500. Aggrieved by the said order of the Sales Tax Officer the applicant made appeal under section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Check Post, who rejected the same. On meeting failure at the level of the Assistant Commissioner petitioner filed second appeal before the Tribunal at Agra under section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal by its order date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that basis it is argued that seizure order is wholly illegal and question of initiating the proceedings and passing the order for imposition of penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) did not arise. It was, therefore accordingly prayed that the order of the Tribunal under challenge, which is in contradiction to the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated July 22, 1993, should be set aside and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad may be directed to redecide the applicant's appeal in the light of the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, dated July 22, 1993. Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax has fairly agreed to this proposition set forth by the learned counsel for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal, Ghaziabad, imposing penalty on the basis of the same seizure order, such a situation obviously is not warranted by law. Since the applicant himself is responsible for giving rise to this situation, normally the revision application should have been dismissed but seeing that its dismissal may result in simultaneous existence of two contradictory orders dated July 22, 1993 and the other which have been passed in respect of the same matter, i.e., seizure order dated November 6, 1990, as such, the interest of justice requires that the order under challenge should be set aside. It is in this special circumstance that this revision application is allowed and the order dated September 4, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, ....