Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 895 - DELHI HIGH COURTInvokation of power under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - Three premises of the petitioner sealed for non production of documents on time - Held that:- there is nothing in the file which shows what reasons weighed with the Commissioner to order a survey under Section 59 of the DVAT Act and subsequently order sealing of the premises under Section 60 of the DVAT Act. The Petitioner was at the time of inspection not functioning at H-45 but from D-4 Udyog Vihar. It had recently shifted from the address at Okhla Estate to Nehru Place. The deployment order was not in respect of the aforementioned two addresses and yet those were sealed. How this was possible without a fresh deployment order being issued is unexplained. There is no indication as to what prompted the extreme step of sealing of the three premises. The order in that behalf has been passed not by the Commissioner but by the VATO but there is nothing to indicate that the VATO was authorised to do so by an order issued in Form DVAT 50 as on 15th March 2013. With the sealing order bristling with so many illegalities, there can be no manner of doubt that the sealing action was undertaken mechanically and only for the reason of failure to produce records as sought by the notice under Section 59 of the Act. There was no satisfaction arrived at by the Commissioner, as mandatorily required by Section 60 (1) of the DVAT Act, that there was any deliberate attempt by the Petitioner to avoid or evade tax or to conceal its tax liability in any manner. Therefore, the sealing order is set aside. Validity of condition of de-sealing - Demand of ₹ 600 crores - Held that:- VATO simply totals up the turnover figures for 2011-12 and 2012-13, deducts 25% therefrom in terms of Rule 3 (2) of the DVAT Rules 2005 and arrives at a figure of ₹ 124.11 crores towards tax and approximately ₹ 31.02 crores as penalty. It then adverts to the assessment order for 2008-09 and the challenge thereto by the Petitioner in the Supreme Court and this Court (which is pending as of date) and in terms of the rectified assessment and penalty orders the demand created worked out to ₹ 614.60 crores. Then it seeks to create a demand "on the basis of same proportions" for 2009-10 to 2012-13 and arrives at a figure of approximately ₹ 2190.44 crores. It is on this basis that the VATO has ordered that as a condition for de-sealing the Petitioners three premises, the petitioner should deposit ₹ 600 crores. This figure is therefore based entirely on guess work and 'projections' without any adjudication. The only description that can fit such a de-sealing order is that it is 'preposterous'. Therefore, the de-sealing order which requires the Petitioner to deposit ₹ 600 crores as a condition for de-sealing is an abuse of the powers under Section 60 (4) of the DVAT Act and is unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of petitioner
|