BANGLORE AGARBATTI HOUSE Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist is a registered dealer under section 17 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as an Act). It deals in sale and purchase of "agarbatti" (incense stick) which is said to be exempt from tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act/U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. A consignment of 60 bags of "agarbatti" of the revisionist coming from Bihar to Varanasi and duly accompanied by bills was detained by the mobile squad, Commercial Tax at Chandauli on April 20, 2011 on the ground that there was no import declaration form XXXVIII along with the goods. A show -cause notice dated May 20, 2011 was issued, in reply to which, the revisionist submitted that no import declaration form is required as "agarbatti" is exempt vide entry 41 of the First Schedule to the Act read with section 7(b) of the Act. Thereafter, a seizure order was passed on April 21, 2011. Petitioner's representation against the same under section 48(7) of the Act was rejected on April 25, 2011. The appeal of the petitioner to the Tribunal was also dismissed on April 28, 2011 and the seizure was affirmed.

(2.) THE revisionist in the aforesaid circumstances filed the present revision challenging the seizure order on the ground that the goods could not have been seized as under section 50 of the Act no import declaration form is necessary in respect of exempted goods and "agarbatti" is exempt from tax under the Act. The revision was connected to Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 324 of 2011 (Mehndipur Balaji Impex (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) wherein the question as to whether the validity of the seizure order passed under the Act can be challenged in revision under section 58 of the Act before the High Court in view of the specific bar contained under section 60(b) of the Act was referred for adjudication to the larger Bench.

(3.) FOLLOWING the aforesaid decision the same Division Bench answered the reference in Mehndipur Balaji Impex vide order dated May 30, 2011 and held that the validity of the seizure order can be considered in proceeding in appeal or revision as that directly reflect on the issue of issuance of direction under the proviso to sub -section (7) of section 48 of the Act.