2017 (5) TMI 544 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

De-sealing of premises - validity of Section 5(2) of the DVAT Act, 2004 - Held that - the Court considers it appropriate to direct that the Respondents pay a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs to the Petitioner as costs of these proceedings. The Petitioner is at liberty to pursue other appropriate remedies as far as the loss allegedly suffered by it as a result of the illegal sealing action of the Respondent of its three offices - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside the sealing and de-sealing orders by the Value Added Tax Officer.
2. Compliance with court directions regarding costs to be awarded to the Petitioner.
3. Assessment of losses suffered by the Petitioner due to sealing of premises.
4. Determination of costs to be awarded to the Petitioner.

Setting aside sealing and de-sealing orders:
The High Court set aside the order of the Value Added Tax Officer sealing three office premises of the Petitioner at different locations. The Court also annulled the de-sealing order that mandated the Petitioner to deposit a significant amount for de-sealing. The Court found the entire action to be unauthorized and lacking legal basis, especially in the context of the Petitioner's challenge to assessment proceedings and the validity of a specific section of the DVAT Act. The Court concluded that the actions taken were not in accordance with DVAT Rules.

Compliance with court directions for costs:
The Court had directed the Commissioner to file an affidavit regarding compliance with previous orders and to report on costs to be awarded to the Petitioner. Subsequently, after multiple hearings, the Court ordered the Respondents to pay a specified amount as costs to the Petitioner within a given timeframe. The Petitioner was granted liberty to pursue additional remedies concerning the losses incurred due to the sealing of its offices.

Assessment of losses suffered by the Petitioner:
The Petitioner filed an affidavit detailing the losses suffered as a result of the sealing of its three offices. The affidavit mentioned the number of staff deployed at the premises, the loss of man-hours, and estimated financial losses. The Respondents raised concerns about factual inaccuracies in the affidavit, but the Court decided not to scrutinize its correctness at that stage. Instead, the Court awarded a token amount as costs to the Petitioner and allowed the Petitioner to seek further remedies for the losses suffered.

Determination of costs to be awarded:
After considering the affidavits filed and the previous order, the Court directed the Respondents to pay a specified sum as costs to the Petitioner. The Court clarified that the awarded costs were separate from any other remedies the Petitioner might pursue for the losses incurred due to the illegal sealing actions. The Respondents were instructed to make the payment within a stipulated period, and the petitions were disposed of accordingly.