Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Verma Roadways Versus Goverment of NCT Delhi & Others

2016 (8) TMI 301 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Business of transportation of goods of dealers – survey – sealing of premises - seizure – production of documents – application for de-sealing of premises – re-sealing - writ-petition. - It was pointed out that the Petitioner is a transporter and not a dealer. The Petitioner stated that the goods lying at its premises are value added tax (VAT) paid goods and traceable to bona fide dealers registered under the DVAT Act. - Regarding the issue of sealing - Held that: - Mere non-production of do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reasons for re- sealing, consistent with the requirements of Section 60 (2) of the DVAT Act, had to be found in the form of a note in the file by the Commissioner or his authorised delegate. There is no such note. Hence, the re-sealing was illegal. - There has been a wilful violation of the statutory provisions by the officers concerned. They have acted not only in ignorance of the law but in violation of the statutory requirements – disciplinary action against officers after opportunity of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J. 1. The Petitioner, a partnership firm, carries on the business of transportation goods of dealers registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( DVAT Act ) as well as registered dealers of other States. The Petitioner, whose registered office appears to be in Kanpur Uttar Pradesh, has one of its godowns at Gali No. 8, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi - 110042. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that at around 12 midnight on 2nd /3rd July 2016, the Assistant Commissioner ( AC )/Value Added Tax Offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

istered under the DVAT Act. 3. The Petitioner states that on 11th July 2016, the premises was de-sealed for a few hours. The statement of the Branch Manager of the Petitioner was recorded. The original invoices and other relevant documents relating to the stocks in the premises were seized. The original documents lying in the premises were taken into custody by the AC. On the same day, a notice under Section 59 of the DVAT Act was issued, requiring the Petitioner to produce the complete books of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h July 2016 for de- sealing of the premises. When no action was taken, the present petition was filed on 29th July 2016. 5. When the petition was listed first for hearing on 1st August 2016, notice was issued and the VATO concerned was asked to remain in Court along with records on the following date. On 2nd August 2016, the following order was passed: 1. Mr. Yogesh Pal Singh, Assistant. Commissioner (AC)/ VATO, Ward- 208 is present with the relevant file. 2. The Court has perused the file. Ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

one of the dealers whose goods have been detained in the godown of the Petitioner. The order notes that the said person did not have a POA but had submitted the purchase register up to July, 2016. The case is then adjourned to 11am on 20th July, 2016. 3. The file contains a copy of a letter received on 19th July, 2016 from Mr. Rajiv Tripathi of the Petitioner seeking one week s time to produce the necessary documents. Significantly, there is no noting in the file regarding the visit to the Petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing which the action under Section 60 of the DVAT Act for sealing of the business premises will be taken "in the interest of government revenue". The file contains a copy of an order dated 2nd July, 2016 signed by Mr. P.R. Meena, Spl. Commissioner, Enforcement Branch, authorizing a team of four officials, led by Mr. Mr Ajay Arora, SDM, Mayur Vihar, and including Mr. Yogesh Pal Singh, AC, to enter and search the premises of the Petitioner, to inspect the accounts and other documents, se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

visit of the team who was directed to produce the books of accounts of the firm. However, he has failed to produce the books of account till p.m. inspite of issue of notice u/s 59 of DVAT Act, 2004.... . When the Court inquired from Mr. Yogesh Pal Singh about the notice under Section 59 of the DVAT Act referred to in the above notice under Section 60 of the DVAT Act, he was candid enough to state that no such notice was issued prior to 2nd July, 2016. When he was asked about the hand-written rem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law. 7. For a second time, consequent, upon the same illegal order dated 2nd July, 2016 of Mr. Meena, the same team proceeded to again seal the premises of the Petitioner on 11th July, 2016. A copy of the sealing notice has been placed on record. The only reason stated therein is that the Petitioner has failed to produce its books of accounts despite notice under Section 59 of the DVAT Act. 8. The above action, on the face of it, is wholly illeg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the past dealt with the misuse by the officers of the Department of Trade and Taxes of the powers under Section 59 of the DVAT Act (for inspection of records) and Section 60 of the DVAT Act to enter premises and seize the goods. In its order dated 27.01.2016, in WP(C) No. 714/2016 (Shree Ashtvinayak Gems & Stone Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner, Trade and Taxes, Delhi) the Court observed as under: 5. Section 60 of the Act sets out the jurisdictional requirement for invocation of the power under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in a pre-printed form, that the dealer failed to produce the books of accounts till 7:30 PM in spite of issue of notice under Section 59 of the DVAT Act 2004 . 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 that the decision 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 Section 59 of the Act to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of that Petitioner. In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2016) SCC OnLine Del. 664, a detailed order was passed by the Court in similar circumstances. In paras 13 to 15 of the said order, it was noted as under: 13. As far as the present case is concerned, 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 deploym .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

here 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. 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. 15. 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 record .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the mandate of the law. Again in Capri Bathaid Private Limited v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (2016) 155 DRJ 526 (DB) the Court reiterated the legal position regarding the powers of survey under Section 59 of the DVAT Act and search and seizure under Section 60 of the DVAT Act., the Court noted that there is a basic misconception that the VAT Authorities are to mechanically exercise the power of survey under Section 59 of the Act followed immediately by a search and seizure operation unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o take action under Section 60 of the DVAT Act, 2004, as may be necessary . 13. The above actions of sealing of the business premises of the Petitioner have been undertaken in ignorance of the law and contrary to the judgments pronounced by the Court time and again. The sealing of the Petitioner s premises is hereby declared to be illegal. 14. The Court directs immediate de-sealing of the Petitioner s premises at Gali No.8, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi by the Respondents. Mr. Yogesh Pal Singh, AC, shall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Commissioner, Enforcement Branch, who issued the order dated 2nd July, 2016 to remain personally present in court on 4th August, 2016 at 10.30 a.m. Mr. P.R. Meena will bring to court the set of circulars that have been issued on the question of the powers under Section 59 and 60 of the DVAT Act following the orders passed by this court in the matters referred above. 16. Mr. Yogesh Pal Singh, Asstt. Commissioner shall also remain present in court on the next date of hearing. The Court will also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or the Petitioner confirmed that pursuant to the order dated 2nd August 2016 the premises has been de-sealed at 5 pm on that date itself as directed by the Court. However, he pointed out that the originals of the documents that had been seized during the sealing had not yet been returned to the Petitioner. The Court then kept the matter at 2.15 pm and requested the Commissioner, VAT to remain present. 7. At 2.15 pm when the matter was called out, Mr. S.S. Yadav, Commissioner, VAT was also presen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

requirement of law under Section 60(2) of the DVAT Act. 9. The file produced today was perused by the Court. It contains a note prepared on 2nd July 2016 which talks of a complaint received in the office of the Chief Minister through the PGMS portal stating that pan masala, bidi, cigarettes, plastic goods, hardware, medical goods etc. are being supplied through Rajasthan to Delhi without tax invoices by certain transporters . The note then refers to a list of transporters provided by the Specia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

who have been appointed as Value Added Tax Authorities vide notification dated 6.11.2015 . The note seeks permission to survey the premises of the transporters. 10. The note sets out in a tabular form the team number, the name of the officers, the ward/branch and the contact numbers of the officers. It proposes that survey of the godowns should be conducted under the supervision of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the whole survey to be videographed. It further proposes that the Zonal In-charge of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cial drive initiated against the transporters on 2nd July 2016. In tabular columns the name of the Zonal In- Charge, Team No., name of the Officers/AC and the action/status have been set out. In the last column, where the sealing operation on a particular transporter/travel agent did not succeed, the name is mentioned. In respect of all others it is simply stated: Godown Sealed . It appears that twenty six godowns were sealed and four were not identified/traced. The note also mentions that 8-10 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny of the premises. What had been permitted to be undertaken on 2nd July 2016 was only a 'survey' under Section 60 of the DVAT Act. There is a substantive difference between a 'survey' operation undertaken under Section 59 of the DVAT Act, an inspection under Section 60 (1) of the DVAT Act and a 'sealing' operation under Section 60 (2) of the DVAT Act. 14. Below the note dated 4th July 2016, a superior officer of the DT&T before whom the file was placed posed a questi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; This note was approved by the Commissioner, VAT on the same day i.e. 5th July 2016. 15. Each of the above officers appear to have overlooked the fact that there was no authorisation in the first place for the 'sealing' of the premises of the transporters. The last note in the file produced today is dated 29th July 2016 and it states inter alia that: survey of 24 godowns were conducted out of which 23 godowns have been de-sealed after assessment and realising of tax and penalty of ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r s reasonable grounds to believe that any person or dealer is attempting to avoid or evade tax or is concealing his tax liability in any manner . 17. The Court repeatedly asked Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, whether there was such a note in any of the files satisfying the requirement of the law for sealing the Petitioner's premises in terms of Section 60(2) of the DVAT Act, 2004. Apart from referring to the above two notes dated 2nd and 4th July 2016, Mr. Srinivasan was unable to point out any notin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s godown in Swaroop Nagar on 2nd July 2016, with the AC issuing a sealing order on that date, which was extracted in full in para 5 of this Court's order dated 2nd August 2016, was wholly without the authority of law. This Court's order dated 2nd August 2016 records the further reasons for concluding that the sealing action on 2nd July was illegal. The re-sealing of the Petitioner's godown on 11th July 2016 was also not supported by any such note in terms of Section 60 (2) of the DVA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

: "60. Power to enter premises and seize records and goods (1) All goods kept at any business premises by a dealer, transporter or operator of a warehouse shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by the Commissioner. (2) Where the Commissioner, upon information in his possession or otherwise has reasonable grounds to believe that any person or dealer is attempting to avoid or evade tax or is concealing his tax liability in any manner and for the purposes of administration of this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or make or cause to be made extracts or copies thereof without charge; (e) make a note or any inventory of any such money or goods found as a result of such search or place marks of identification on such goods; and (f) seal the premises including the office, shop, godown, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle. (3) Where it is not feasible to remove any records, books of account, registers, other documents or goods, the Commissioner may serve on the owner and any person who is in immedi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sealing or release thereof, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions including furnishing of security for such sum in such form and manners as may be prescribed. (5) The Commissioner may requisition the services of any police officer or any public servant, or of both, to assist him for all or any of the purposes specified in subsection (2) of this section. (6) Save as otherwise provided in this section, every search or seizure made under this section shall as far as possible be carried o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lhi (2016) SCC OnLine Del. 664 discussed in some detail the legal position as regards the powers of survey and search and seizure under Sections 59 and 60 of the DVAT Act. These have been adverted to in the order dated 2nd August 2016 extracted in full hereinbefore and therefore need not be repeated. 22. Section 60 (2) of the DVAT Act presupposes that when it is proposed to seal the premises of a particular transporter, there must be some concrete information and some material qua that transport .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een an 'inspection' under Section 60 (1) of the DVAT Act, which could be of the any premises or warehouse of any dealer, transporter or operator and Section 60(2) of the DVAT Act only talks of evasion or avoidance of tax or concealment of tax liability by any person or dealer . Therefore, qua the person whose premises is sought to be sealed under Section 60 (2) (f) or any of the steps contemplated under Section 60 (2) (a) to (e) of the Act, the requirement of the Commissioner having to r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng taxes is insufficient to take the extreme step of sealing the premises of any and every transporter merely on suspicion without anything more. The 'sealing' of a premises from which business is conducted has serious consequences and should not be lightly undertaken. The file should contain the decision of the Commissioner or his delegate which reflects an application of mind and the recording of the reasonable grounds to believe that that a person or dealer is attempting to avoid or e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner so to do, fails (a) to furnish any information in his possession in respect of the goods; or (b) fails to permit inspection thereof; then without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against such person, a presumption may be raised that the goods in respect of which he has failed to furnish information or permit inspection, are owned by him and are held by him for sale in Delhi and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. 25. When asked whether any attempt had been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

description of Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act, and should be deemed to be a person liable to pay tax, simply did not arise on 2nd July 2016, when the first sealing took place. 26. In any event, the notes dated 2nd and 4th July 2016 make no reference to Section 3(9) of the DVAT Act. The notes do not describe the Petitioner as a person who should be taken to be a deemed evader of tax in terms of Section 3 (9) of the DVAT Act. They do not record that the Petitioner either failed to furnish any infor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ody responded o the date of sealing i.e. 02.07.2016." This was an untenable ground for sealing the premises as explained in Capri Bathaid Private Limited v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (supra). In other words the mere non-production of documents or books of accounts cannot justify the sealing of the premises under Section 60 (2) of the DVAT Act. Further the action under Section 60 (2) of the DVAT cannot be seen as a continuation of a survey action under Section 59 of the DVAT Act. 28. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed on superdari to the Petitioner and why it was decided to re-seal the premises, Mr Srinivasan volunteered that the officials were apprehensive of the security of the goods and further that the Petitioner had himself agreed to the release of the goods on the following day. The Court finds this explanation unconvincing. 30. The sealing order dated 11th July 2016 is again in a pre-printed form. It states that the Petitioner's Director/authorised signatory "has failed to produce the book .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1th July 2016. 31. Mr Srinivasan referred to a statement in writing given by Mr Rajiv Tripathi Branch Manager of the Petitioner undertaking to produce the relevant documents to the AC on 12th July 2016 "for assessment and release of the goods." The Court fails to understand how this could be a reason for re-sealing the premises. The goods and 47 documents had already been seized by this time. How would the re-sealing of the premises thereafter be of any help to the DT&T? The premis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fied that the re-sealing that took place of the Petitioner's premises at Swaroop Nagar on 11th July 2016 was also illegal. It is clarified, however, that it will be open to the Respondent DT&T to proceed in accordance with law as far the goods and documents seized by its officials from the Petitioner's premises. 33. The Court enquired from Mr. Srinivasan, how Mr P R Meena, the Special Commissioner could have issued a blanket order on 2nd July 2016 authorising the team led by Mr. Ajay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds etc. , and take action under Section 60 of the DVAT Act . 34. It is plain to the Court that Mr. P. R Meena, Spl. Commissioner, who issued the above order did not understand or was not aware of the legal requirement. This despite several judgments of this Court emphasising that the action under Section 59 of the DVAT for a survey of the premises and for seeking information, records etc. could not automatically permit the coercive actions, including sealing of the premises, under Section 60 (2) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 60 (6) of the DVAT Act, "every search or seizure made under this section shall as far as possible be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to searches or seizures made under that Code." These provisions have more often than not been observed in the breach. 35. The Court is of the considered view that there has been a wilful violation of the statutory provisions by the officers concerned and in this case in particular by Mr. P.R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Enforcement Branch is continuing to issue orders in mechanical and irresponsible manner authorising officers to take any action which they may like under Section 60 of the DVAT Act. It is disconcerting to note that Mr. Meena did not make a distinction between an inspection under Section 60(1) of the DVAT Act and a 'sealing' Section 60 (2) (f) of the DVAT Act. 37. The Court, therefore, directs Mr S.S. Yadav the Commissioner, VAT who is present in the Court to call for an explanation fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version