2016 (2) TMI 448 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court orders de-sealing of business premises under DVAT Act, emphasizing need for reasonable grounds

Bhupinder Auto International Versus Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Others

The Court ordered the immediate de-sealing of the petitioner's business premises under Section 60 of the DVAT Act, finding the sealing solely for failure ... Pray for de-sealing of its business premsies - exercise the powers indiscriminately and routinely under DVAT - Held that:- The Court is at this stage not required to examine the correctness of the allegations in the petition as far as what transpired during the visit of the survey team. What, however, concerns the Court is the action taken to seal the premises almost in continuation of the action under Section 59 of the Act. The Court notes that there have been other such instances which have been brought to the notice of the Court recently where the Respondents have been invoking the powers under Section 60 of the DVAT Act indiscriminately and routinely. The action of the Respondents in proceeding to seal the premises of the Petitioner, almost in continuation of the action under Section 59 of the DVAT Act, and only for the failure to produce books of accounts, without anything more, is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is prepared to produce the records and accounts before the concerned VATO on any date as may be directed. Reveue directed to de-seal the property - Decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. De-sealing of business premises under Section 60 of the DVAT Act.2. Allegations of indiscriminate and routine invocation of powers under Section 60.3. Judicial scrutiny of the action taken by the Respondents.4. Compliance with statutory requirements for invoking powers under Section 60.Analysis:Issue 1: De-sealing of business premises under Section 60 of the DVAT ActThe petitioner sought de-sealing of its business premises at a specific location after the premises were sealed by the VAT Department under Section 60 of the DVAT Act. The Court noted that the sealing order was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to produce books of accounts promptly. However, the Court found the action of sealing the premises solely for this reason to be legally unsustainable.Issue 2: Allegations of indiscriminate and routine invocation of powers under Section 60The Court expressed concerns over the Respondents invoking the powers under Section 60 of the DVAT Act indiscriminately and routinely. Citing a previous judgment invalidating a similar sealing of business premises, the Court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner having reasonable grounds to believe that tax evasion or concealment was occurring before exercising powers under Section 60.Issue 3: Judicial scrutiny of the action taken by the RespondentsThe Court refrained from delving into the specifics of the allegations made by the petitioner during the visit of the survey team. Instead, the Court focused on the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the swift action to seal the premises following the failure to produce accounts. The Court highlighted that such actions must be based on solid grounds and not be a mechanical exercise.Issue 4: Compliance with statutory requirements for invoking powers under Section 60The Court reiterated the statutory requirement for invoking powers under Section 60, emphasizing that the Commissioner must have reasonable grounds to suspect tax evasion or concealment. The Court stressed that this decision should not be made hastily or mechanically, as evidenced by the previous judgment where the sealing was invalidated due to procedural lapses.In conclusion, the Court directed the immediate de-sealing of the petitioner's business premises, highlighting the need for a more judicious and legally sound approach in invoking powers under the DVAT Act to prevent arbitrary actions against taxpayers.