Disposed

Surya Enterprises through Its Karta Daman Thukral v. Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/300/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the valuation authorities to de-seal the petitioner's premises within 48 hours. The Court ordered the Department to take custody of any remaining required documents within the same timeframe if not already done, prepare an inventory, and hand back the keys.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Department to take custody of required documents and de-seal the petitioner's premises on or before the expiry of 48 hours.

Surya Enterprises through Its Karta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 31. + W.P.(C) 300/2016 SURYA ENTERPRISES THROUGH: ITS KARTA DAMAN THUKRAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Babbar and Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advocates.

¶3

versus

¶4

COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing counsel with Mr. R.A. Iyer, Advocate.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶6

O R D E R % 13.01.2016

¶7

Notice. Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (‘ASC’) for Respondents accepts notice.

¶8

The Petitioner, a proprietary concern, is registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It holds a VAT registration which is valid as of date.

¶9

The Petitioner was surveyed by the Enforcement officials of the Respondents on 5^th November 2015 pursuant to a deployment order of that

¶10

W.P. (C) No. 300/2016

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

date issued by the Enforcement Branch of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (‘GNCTD’), Department of Trade & Taxes in terms of which searches were conducted in the premises of M/s. Thukral Steel Corporation, M/s Shubh Steel and M/s. Surya Enterprises (the Petitioner herein) all of whom were having their offices in the same building at Naraina Loha Mandi, Delhi.

¶13

As far as the present petition is concerned, the grievance is that the premises having been sealed on 5^th November 2015 itself, there was no justification to continue to keep it sealed till today. It is submitted that the survey report dated 6^th November 2015 prepared by the Enforcement officials reveals that the Department already has collected the necessary documents and information. Reliance is placed on the orders passed by the Court in similar cases including the order dated 19^th May 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3107/2014 ( Sandeep Chemical Corporation v. Commissioner, Value Added Tax ), order dated 26^th May 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 3441/2014 ( Reema Polychem Ltd. v. GNCTD ) and order dated 8^th July 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1324/2014 ( S.D. Enterprises v. GNCTD ) where in similar circumstances, the Court has directed de-sealing of the premises within 48 hours of the sealing.

¶14

W.P. (C) No. 300/2016

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned ASC does not dispute the legal position as explained by the Court in the above orders. He, however, states that in the event that the Department is yet to take custody of the documents that it requires, it will do so within 48 hours from now.

¶17

In view of the above statement, it is directed that within 48 hours from now the Department will, if it has not already done so, take custody of any documents, records, registers, books of accounts or goods lying in the premises of the Petitioner, which it requires for the purposes of the case against the Petitioner, after handing over copies thereof, where possible, to the Petitioner. An inventory of the documents, records, registers, books of accounts or goods seized will be prepared. The premises will be de-sealed and handed back to the Petitioner on or before the expiry of 48 hours from now.

¶18

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

S. MURALIDHAR, J

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

JANUARY 13, 2016/ dn

¶22

W.P. (C) No. 300/2016

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Surya Enterprises through Its Karta Daman Thukral v. Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Enterprises through Its Karta Daman Thukral v. Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabin Kishore Chouhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Naveen Kumar Anand (Retd.) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Neelam Kaura Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Rajesh Sachdeva Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prashant Chauhan Vs Tribunal (Under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (Central District

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Ved Prakash Gupta and Anr.

Npsc Co-Operative Group Housingh Society Ltd. Vs Shashi Sood & Others

Rahul & Ors. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL-2) Vs Satkar Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Aden Marketing Pvt. Ltd.)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL-2) Vs Satkar Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Aden Marketing Pvt. Ltd.)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL-2) Vs Satkar Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Aden Marketing Pvt. Ltd.)

The Commissioner, Vat Vs V.D. Autowheels

Pr. CIT-06 Vs Moradabad Toll Road Co. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-6 Vs M.L. Outsourcing P. Ltd.