Pankaj Mithal - The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow has preferred this revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi dated July 2, 2010 allowing the appeal of the opposite party against the order of seizure and its affirmation by the first appellate authority.

On inspection of the vehicle by the mobile squad of the Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow on June 10/11, 2010 the goods were detained and after issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of reply a seizure order under section 48 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") was passed on June 15, 2010 in the name of the opposite party. The representation of the opposite party under section 48(7) of the VAT Act was rejected by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jhansi on June 25, 2010 whereupon the opposite party preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed. Hence, this revision.

I have heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the Department and Sri Piyush Agrawal for the respondent. I have also perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties and with their consent proceed to decide the matter finally.

The main ground of