- (1.) 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.;