2016 (2) TMI 906 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking de-sealing of business premises - Invokation of powers under Section 60(2)(f) of the Act - Outstanding tax demand - Held that - 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 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 has avoided or evaded the said tax demand. Therefore, business premises of the petitioner be directed to de-sealed and the documents/records seized at the time of the sealing will be returned to the Petitioner. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of powers under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 for sealing business premises.
2. Compliance with jurisdictional requirements under Section 60(2)(f) of the Act.
3. Adequate opportunity given to the Petitioner before sealing the premises.
4. Directive for de-sealing the business premises and returning seized documents.
5. Direction for the Petitioner to produce records before the concerned officer.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the invocation of powers under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, where the Commissioner sealed the business premises of the Petitioner based on an alleged tax evasion of Rs. 3 Crore. The Court scrutinized the Commissioner's satisfaction based on the statutory requirement under Section 60(2)(f) of the Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe tax evasion or concealment, supported by available materials on record.

2. The Court noted that the decision to seal the premises was taken hastily without affording the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to explain or without any communicated assessment of the alleged tax demand. The judgment highlighted that the invocation of powers under Section 60(2)(f) should not be a presumption in the absence of a formal assessment. The Court found the sealing notice deficient in meeting the jurisdictional requirements, as it was mechanically executed without proper consideration.

3. Consequently, the Court directed the immediate de-sealing of the Petitioner's business premises, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural fairness and statutory provisions. The de-sealing was ordered to be completed by a specified date, ensuring the presence of the Petitioner's authorized representative during the process. Additionally, the judgment mandated the return of seized documents and required the signing of proceedings by both the concerned VATO and the Petitioner's representative.

4. Furthermore, the judgment instructed the Petitioner to produce the necessary records before the concerned officer on a specified date, facilitating the resolution of any outstanding issues or information required by the Department. The Court's directive aimed to balance the interests of both parties while upholding procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.

5. In conclusion, the petition and the pending application were disposed of in accordance with the Court's directions, ensuring the protection of the Petitioner's rights and the proper application of statutory provisions under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.