Court quashes sealing order under Delhi VAT Act for Select City Walk premises

The court granted the petitioner's request to quash the sealing order under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 for the premises at Select City Walk, District Centre Saket, New Delhi. The respondent, identified as a licensee, was directed to shift goods to a designated secure location within the same complex under the supervision of a Local Commissioner. Failure to comply within four weeks would result in handing over the items to the respondent. Once the shifting process was completed, the premises were to be desealed and possession transferred to the petitioner, concluding the Writ Petition.

---

---

Issues involved:
Quashing of sealing order under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 dated 11.12.2015 for premises at Select City Walk, District Centre Saket, New Delhi and de-sealing of the premises.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the sealing order under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, dated 11.12.2015, for the premises at Select City Walk, District Centre Saket, New Delhi, and requested the de-sealing of the premises.
2. The petitioner claimed ownership of the premises and stated that the respondent was merely a licensee with no right, title, or interest in the said premises.
3. The Commissioner, Value Added Tax, had no objection to shifting the goods to another portion within the same complex, provided that the respondent was not allowed to deal with the goods until appropriate steps were taken by the Commissioner.
4. The petitioner was directed to arrange space in the same complex for shifting the respondent's goods and ensure that the location was secure and sealable.
5. A Local Commissioner was appointed to supervise the dismantling and shifting of equipment, goods, furniture, fittings, and fixtures to a secured location within the same complex, with the process to commence on a specified date.
6. The Local Commissioner was tasked with preparing an inventory of the shifted items, arranging for video-graphy of the process, and ensuring the new premises' security and sealing, with the keys to be deposited with the Court.
7. The fee of the Local Commissioner was determined and to be shared equally between the petitioner and the respondent.
8. The respondent was granted four weeks to take appropriate steps regarding the shifted items; failure to do so would result in handing over the items to the respondent.
9. The premises were to be desealed after the shifting process was completed, and possession was to be handed over to the petitioner, concluding the disposal of the Writ Petition.
10. A compliance report was scheduled for a later date, with instructions for service under the Court Master's signatures.

This judgment addressed the issues of ownership, licensing, sealing of premises, shifting of goods, supervision by a Local Commissioner, inventory preparation, video-graphy, security of the new location, fee allocation, time frame for action by the respondent, desealing of premises, and possession transfer.

---