Allowed

Thukral Steel Corporation through Its Proprietor Daman Thukral v. Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/350/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the tax enforcement officials to desvent the petitioner's premises within 48 hours, directing the custody of documents or goods if still required, and preparing an inventory, relying on court orders in similar cases mandating quick resolution of sealing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to desail the premises within 48 hours; if documents/goods are still required, seize them after making copies and prepare an inventory of what was taken.

Thukral Steel Corporation through Its Proprietor… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

- W.P.(C) 350/2016

¶5

THUKRAL STEEL CORPORATION

¶6

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR DAMAN THUKRAL .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Babbar with Mr. Ankuar Sethi, Mr. Vasdev Lalwani and Mr. Rohit, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

COMMISSIONER VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR....Respondents Through: Mr. Shatarjit Banerjee, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Narayan, Addl. Standing counsel.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶11

O R D E R % 15.01.2016

¶12

Notice. Mr. Shatarjit Banerjee, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

ITA 350/2016

¶17

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 (the Petitioner herein), M/s Shubh Steel and M/s. Surya Enterprises all of whom were having their offices in the same building at Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi.

¶18

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 date. It is submitted that the survey report dated 6^th November 2015 prepared by the Enforcement officials reveals that the Department had already 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 2014 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 had directed de-sealing of the premises within 48 hours of the sealing.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Respondents does not dispute the legal position as explained by the Court in the above orders. He, however,

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

ITA 350/2016

¶22

states that in the event that the Department is yet to take custody of the documents that it requires from the sealed premises, it will do so within 48 hours from now.

¶23

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 desealed and handed back to the Petitioner on or before the expiry of 48 hours from now.

¶24

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order be given dasti.

¶25

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶26

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶27

JANUARY 15, 2016 Rk

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

ITA 350/2016

Thukral Steel Corporation through Its Proprietor Daman Thukral v. Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thukral Steel Corporation through Its Proprietor 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

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.

A-One Marketing Division Vs Chief Post Master General & Ors.

Cpl Shankar Bhagwan Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jamil Khan & Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

Ashish Srivastava Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Sun Pahrmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Vaish Associates Advocates Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Vaish Associates Advocates Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Lloyd Electric & Engineering Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

R.L.Traders Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 47 (1)

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-(CENTRAL-2) Vs Grover Garments Pvt. Ltd.