Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The transporter has filed this revision for the quashing of the order of seizure dated 4.12.2012 and for a direction for the release of the seized goods without demanding any security so as to permit him to carry the goods further to their destination at Kolkata.

2. The case of the transporter is that he loaded the goods in his vehicle from Delhi for delivery at Kolkata. The goods were booked by M/s Avon Traders Delhi for delivery to M/s Khaitan Enterprize Kolkata and an invoice was given to him whereupon he issued the bilty.

3. The transporter being the person incharge of the vehicle carrying the goods before entering in the State of U.P. as required down loaded the Transit Declaration Form bearing No. D20121100348986 from the official website of the Commercial Tax Department and duly filled up the same.

4. The goods in transit were detained by the Mobile Squad at Mathura and a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2012 was given as to why the goods may not be seized.

5. In response to the show-cause notice the transporter filed reply contending that in the Transit Declaration Form the goods by mistake have been described as cotton fabric instead of cotton coated fabric and the Tin number of the Kolkata dealer differs slightly. Since the consigner and the consignee are both registered dealers of their respective States and as all necessary documents are accompanying the goods they not liable to be seized.

6. The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax mobile squad on consideration of the reply passed a seizure order on 4.12.2012 in purported exercise of power under Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but ordered for the release of the same on furnishing security of Rs. 1,60,000/- @ 40% of the value of the goods amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-.

7. The transporter represented against it by filing an application under Section 48(7) of the Act which was rejected on 28.1.2013 and the order of release of the goods as aforesaid was confirmed.

8. The appeal preferred by the transporter under Section 57(4) of the Act before the Tribunal was dismissed on 7.2.2013.

9. It is after failing in his attempt to get the seized goods released without any security that the transporter has preferred this revision under Section 58 of the Act.

10. Section 60 of the Act provides for the orders of the authorities which cannot be challenged by means of appeal or revision. Section 60 of the Act reads as under :

“60. Orders against which no appeal or revision shall lie.—No appeal and no application for revision shall lie against:

(a) an order or notice initiating an inquiry for assessment or re-assessment;

(b) any order or action under Section 45, [sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] of Section 48, sub-section (6) of Section 50 or an order of seizure of goods; and

(c) any direction issued by the Commissioner in exercise of powers as may be prescribed.”

11. A reading of the above provision establishes that no appeal or revision is provided against the order of seizure of goods.

12. In view of the above, the order of seizure dated 4.12.2012 cannot be challenged in this revision.

13. In the scheme of the Act the power to seize goods has been laid down under Section 48 of the Act. The Officer seizing the goods also has the power to order for the release of the seized goods on deposit of the amount sufficient to cover the penalty likely to be imposed. Sub-Section (7) of Section 48 of the Act further lays down that the Commissioner or an Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner authorized on behalf of the Commissioner may by an order in writing direct for the release of the goods without any deposit or on deposit of lesser amount or on furnishing security other than cash or indemnity bond in such form as may deem fit.

14. Under Section 48(7) of the Act the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner is only authorized to consider the release of the seized goods without deposit or on de