YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Pandey learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) These two revisions call in question an order of the Tribunal dated 5 July 2017 dismissing applications made by the Department under Section 31 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008 VAT Act.
(3.) It appears from the record that certain goods being transported by the respondents were apprehended by a mobile squad on 19 May 2016. The goods were seized on 25 May 2016. Against the order of seizure, the respondents approached the Joint Commissioner, who passed the order dated 17 June 2016. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was taken to the Tribunal. A Bench of the Tribunal allowed this appeal on 22 June 2016 commanding the release of goods without any security. After passing of this order, the revisionist moved an application purported to be under Section 31 of the VAT Act. The sole ground which was taken in the application was that the departmental representative was not heard before the passing of the order dated 22 June 2016. This application has been rejected by the Tribunal in terms of the order impugned in the present revision.;