Statutory power to seal business premises applies only on specific conditions; action beyond them infringes livelihood rights.

Section 52(1)(f) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act permits sealing of business premises only in the specific situations stated in the provision, such as absence of the person in charge or refusal to open the premises when called upon. Where the inspection record shows the proprietor was present and cooperated, and there is no material of obstruction or refusal, the sealing power cannot be invoked. Because sealing directly affects the livelihood of the person in charge of the business, it must be exercised strictly within statutory limits and in conformity with Article 21.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sealing of the business premises was authorised under Section 52(1)(f) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the impugned sealing order could stand in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to seal under Section 52(1)(f) is confined to the situations expressly stated in the provision, namely where the owner or person in charge leaves the premises, is not available, or fails or refuses to open the box, receptacle, godown, building, or part thereof when called upon. The facts recorded in the inspection mahazar showed that the petitioner was present and had cooperated with the inspection. There was no material to show refusal to open the premises or obstruction of inspection. As the power affected the livelihood of the person in charge of the business, it had to be exercised strictly within the statutory limits and in conformity with law.

Conclusion: The sealing order was not justified and was liable to be set aside. The action was held to be beyond the scope of Section 52(1)(f) and violative of Article 21.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to seal business premises can be exercised only on the specific conditions stated in the enabling provision, and action taken outside those conditions is unlawful and cannot be sustained.

---