2016 (3) TMI 1081 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking de-sealing of business premises - Invokation of powers under Section 60 of the DVAT Act - Held that -similar oredrs have already been held to be illegal by this Court in several cases. Accordingly the order dated 1st March 2016 the notice under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act and the actions taken and orders by the DT&T pursuant thereto are hereby set aside. The business premises of the petitioner be directed to be de-sealed forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sealing of business premises under DVAT Act based on an allegedly illegal deployment order.
2. Legality of videographing the survey, search, and sealing of the premises.
3. Challenge to the constitutional validity of certain sections of DVAT Act and related Rules.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the sealing of the Petitioner's business premises under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) based on a deployment order issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes (DT&T). The Court notes that similar orders have been previously deemed illegal. Citing a recent decision, the Court sets aside the order dated 1st March 2016 and directs the de-sealing of the premises at a specific date and time, emphasizing the presence of the Petitioner's authorized representative during the process.

2. The Petitioner raises concerns about the videographing conducted by DT&T officers during the survey, search, and sealing of the premises, alleging it to be impermissible. The Court instructs the Respondents to provide information on the existence of such a videograph and orders that if it exists, the original must be submitted in a sealed cover before the Court. Additionally, the DT&T and its officers are prohibited from making copies or distributing the videograph.

3. The Petitioner expresses intent to persist with the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 60 (2) (f) and Section 60 (4) of the DVAT Act, as well as Rules 22 (2) and 23 (2A) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules 2005, despite the quashing of the impugned orders dated 1st March 2016. The Court decides to retain the petition for further examination of specific prayers, directing the filing of a counter affidavit within six weeks and a rejoinder before the next hearing date, scheduled for 16th August 2016. Orders are to be provided to the respective counsel under the Court Master's signature.