2024 (2) TMI 293 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - power of Sales Tax Officer u/s 67 of the VAT Act to seize the books of accounts - HELD THAT - Section 3 of the VAT Act confers powers upon the Commissioner. Sub-Section (4) of Section 3, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, empowers the Commissioner to delegate by an order in writing any of those powers under this Act, except those under sub-Section (13) of Section 93. In the present set of facts we are not concerned with the power confers by the VAT Act upon the Commissioner or delegation of any of the powers by the Commissioner. Therefore, Section 3 of the VAT Act has no relevance with respect to the controversy involved in the present appeal. Since the Sales Tax Officer, who seized the books of accounts, does not lack power or jurisdiction to seize under Section 67 of the VAT Act, therefore, learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error or law to quash the seizure of books of accounts, etc. of the petitioner. The judgement and order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 641 (W) of 2016, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sales Tax Officer had the power under Section 67 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act) to seize books of accounts.
2. Whether the delegation of power by the Commissioner in writing was necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to exercise such power.

Summary:

Issue 1: Power of Sales Tax Officer under Section 67 of the VAT Act

The primary issue revolves around the legality of the seizure of books of accounts by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 67 of the VAT Act. The learned Single Judge had quashed the seizure, holding that the Sales Tax Officer lacked the power under Section 67 due to the absence of a written order from the Commissioner conferring such power. The State contended that the power to seize was conferred by Section 6(1) of the VAT Act and Clause 1(d) of Notification No.792-F.T. dated 31.03.2005, which did not necessitate a separate delegation by the Commissioner. The court found that the Sales Tax Officer, appointed under Section 6(1) and empowered by the mentioned notification, was authorized to exercise the seizure powers under Section 67 of the VAT Act.

Issue 2: Necessity of Delegation by the Commissioner

The second issue concerned whether a written delegation of power by the Commissioner was required for the Sales Tax Officer to exercise the seizure power. The respondent argued that Section 6(2) of the VAT Act required such delegation. However, the court clarified that once a Sales Tax Officer is appointed under Section 6(1) and empowered by the state notification, no additional written delegation by the Commissioner under Section 3(4) is necessary. The court concluded that the Sales Tax Officer did not lack the jurisdiction to seize the books of accounts under Section 67 of the VAT Act.

Conclusion:

The court held that the learned Single Judge had committed a manifest error in quashing the seizure of books of accounts by the Sales Tax Officer. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 were set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The appeal was allowed, and connected applications were disposed of.