9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of law by the officers concerned of the DT&T. - Adjourned for another date - W.P.(C) 1820/2013 & CM No.3490/2013, W.P.(C) 1821/2013 & CM No.3491/2013, W.P.(C) 1822/2013 & CM No. 3492/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Jain, Mr Virag Tiwari and Mr K. J. Bhat, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel and Mr R. A. Iyer, Advocate with Mr Manish Verma, Assistant Commissioner (Spl. Zone.) ORDER 1. This order should be read in continuation of the order dated 3rd February 2016 which sets out the background facts. 2. Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit has been filed by Mr S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various VAT officers, the deployment order were issued as there were multiple officers in these teams. The stated objective of issuing the order was better coordination, supervision and monitoring of entire operation. (v) The approval of the Commissioner VAT was not obtained in any file before the survey of M/s L T Limited as the powers of the Commissioner under Section 60 stood delegated to the officers upto the level of Value Added Tax officers of the department vide order dated 31.10.2005. (vi) The authority to exercise powers under chapter X of DVAT Act, 2004 in the prescribed form i.e. Form DVAT 50 was not issued. In fact such authorization were not being issued in any case. The matter was discussed in a meeting chaired by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CVAT in light of the egregious violations of the law as is evident from the conclusions of his inquiry. Mr Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner, states that the violations which have been pointed out by the CVAT are continuing till this date notwithstanding that several orders have been passed by this Court even subsequent to the order dated 3rd February, 2016 in this case. 6. Mr Nandrajog, again assures the Court that one of the tasks which will be attended to on priority by the CVAT will be to draw a road map so that the violations that he has noticed do not hereafter occur. 7. The Court also notes that the CVAT's report does not advert to the lack of a legal basis for the deployment order dated 15th March 2013, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 29014 makes no reference to the earlier order of 31st October 2005 which delegated those powers only to officers of VATO and above. On the other hand the order dated 15th October, 2014 authorizes the Assistant VATOs and even the Value Added Tax Inspectors (VATIs) to exercise powers of audit, investigation and enforcement . 9. The Court was also shown a similar order issued on 28th August 29015 by the Special Commissioner (HR) after the expiry of the period of the previous order dated 15th October 2014. The order dated 28th August 2015 has been made retrospectively valid from 1st April 2015. Apart from the fact that this order is also vitiated in law for the same reasons that rendered the order dated 15th October 2014 invalid, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port glosses over this aspect. Here again, Mr Nandrajog assures the Court that in the supplementary report to be filed, the CVAT will inform the Court of all the steps taken in compliance with the directions in para 8 of the order dated 3rd February, 2016 as well as in this order. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, it is now evident from the report filed by the CVAT that the decision to survey the premises of the Petitioner was based on a study of the profile in the computer system including indicators like High GTO- Low Tax, frequent change in returns etc. There were only oral discussions between the officers concerned without any written approval of the Commissioner on file. This by itself t is sufficient for the Court to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
