Seizure of dealer's books u/s67 VAT Act upheld; officer had full jurisdiction, petition challenging action dismissed

HC held that the Sales Tax Officer had lawful jurisdiction under s.67 of the VAT Act to seize the dealer's books of account. It ruled that s.3 of the VAT Act, dealing with powers of the Commissioner and their delegation, was irrelevant to the controversy, as the impugned action was directly traceable to s.67 and did not depend on any delegated authority. Finding that the officer neither lacked power nor jurisdiction, HC held the earlier quashing of the seizure by the Single Judge to be a manifest error, set aside that order, and dismissed the petition.

---

---

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.

---