TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower under Section 59 of the Act to search the premises for information and documents. Sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the Petitioner to explain why the premises should not be sealed by the Department. With there being no assessment made and communicated to the Petitioner , that there is an outstanding tax demand of ₹ 3 crore, there could not be a presumption that the Petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the Respondents accepts notice. 4. The Respondent, Commissioner, Trade and Taxes appears to have invoked the powers under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( Act ) and sealed the business premises of the Petitioner after a visit by the Enforcement Team on 22nd January 2016 at about 3:30 pm on the ground that the Petitioner has evaded tax to the tune of ₹ 3 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 3 crores (Three Crores only) and liability to pay this, which he has failed to do. This obviously does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 60(2)(f) of the Act. 6. The facts as set out in the petition reveal that the decision to invoke the powers under Section 60(2)(f) of the Act was taken in undue haste virtually in continuation of invocation of the power under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the sealing will be returned to the Petitioner. The proceedings drawn up for the de-sealing will be signed by both the VATO concerned and the authorized representative of the Petitioner. 8. Counsel for the Petitioner states that it is prepared to produce the records it has before the Respondent on any date as may be directed. It is accordingly directed that the Petitioner will appear before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
