2011 (5) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... through M/s East India Transport Agency against tax invoice No.861 dated 27.1.11. It was intercepted and detained on 17.2.2011 by the mobile squad near Fatehpur. After a show cause notice dated 18.2.2011 was issued, on consideration of the reply, the Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad vide order dated 21.2.2011 directed for the seizure of the consignment and permitted the same to be released on furnishing security in cash equivalent to 40% of the estimated value of the goods. The representation of the revisionist against the aforesaid order under Section 48(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008, (hereinafter referred as Act) was rejected on 11.3.2011 by the Joint Commissioner (SIB) Commercial Taxes, Allahabad. Aggrieved by the said or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was held that appeal under Section 57(4) of the Act to the Tribunal is only provided against the direction issued for release of goods under proviso to Section 48(7) of the Act. Thus when appeal is confined to adjudicating the correctness of the directions only them in revision against the appellate order validity of the seizure can not be gone into. The view taken above is in consonance with Section 60(b) of the Act which had escaped my notice and was not brought to my knowledge by either of the parties while hearing the case of Pan Parag India Ltd. (supra). Section 60(b) of the Act reads as under:- Section 60. Orders against which no appeal or revision shall lie:- No appeal and no application for revision shall lie against- (a)........