Prakash Krishna, J.;-

By consent of parties, this petition has been heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, without calling for any counter affidavit considering the controversy involved.

2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has impugned the seizure order dated 07.05.2011 on the following grounds:-

"(i) Section 50 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act does not permit seizure of a consignment being imported into the State of U.P. on the ground of undervaluation; the entire proceedings suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction and are void ab initio.

(ii) The notice to show cause dated 02.05.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 did not specify the basis for alleging undervaluation of the consignment; the notice was vague and did not give sufficient opportunity to meet out the case of the consignment not having been properly valued; it was no notice in the eyes of law.

(iii) The order dated 07.05.2011 has been passed without fulfilling the preconditions necessary for concluding undervaluation of the consignment; the State has not discharged its burden of proving undervaluation of the consignment; the order is illegal and liable to be set aside."

Though these are three grounds raised in the petition, we propose to consider the ground No.1 and in addition the question whether the importer/transporter, has a remedy under the U.P. VAT Act by way of appeal and/or revision.

3. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, contends that its TIN No. 09985603867 was suspended on 04.05.2011 and subsequently cancelled on 10.05.2011. These orders, according to the petitioner, have been passed ex parte, without observing the principles of natural justice and in violation of the statutory norms. The petitioner has challenged these two orders by filing separate proceedings. In the instant case, what is challenged is the order of seizure dated 07.05.2011 passed by respondent no.2.

4. According to the petitioner, it purchased footwear from Bhiwadi, near Alwar in the State of Rajasthan. It carried the products from Bhiwadi to Delhi by local transport and then booked the consignment from Delhi to Ballia through S.S. Forwarding Agency. The consignment was dispatched by a truck. Along with the consignment, the retail invoices, goods receipts and Form 38 No. 18138400503 issued by the petitioner were being carried. On 02.05.2011, the consignment was intercepted by respondent no.2 in Etawah, and a show cause notice was issued to the owner of the truck requiring him to show cause as to why the consignment be not seized. The notice was issued under Section 50 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. VAT Act'). Reply to the said notice was submitted by the owner of the vehicle to respondent no.2 through the petitioner. As it was alleged in the notice that the goods were undervalued, the petitioner demanded, from the respondents, the basis for alleging the same. The petitioner denied that the goods were undervalued and contended that the charge of undervaluation was unsustainable. The power to seize goods on the ground of undervaluation was not available under the U.P. VAT Act. It was, therefore, contended that the proceedings are void ab initio. The respondent no.2, by order dated 07.05.2011, rejected the reply submitted by the petitioner, estimated the value of the consignment as Rs. 6,37,320/- and also directed for security deposit of Rs.2,96,504/- before the goods are released.

5. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that, under Section 50 of the U.P. VAT Act, no power is conferred to seize the goods on the ground of undervaluation. It is next submitted that there is no remedy available to the petitioner by way of appeal or revision and, consequently, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is also submitted that, as the notice does not specify the basis for undervaluation of the consignment, the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document