SC: Public Premises Act Prevails over State Rent Laws For Evicting Unauthorised Occupants  ||  SC: Doctors Were Unwavering Heroes in COVID-19, and Their Sacrifice Remains Indelible  ||  SC Sets Up Secondary Medical Board to Assess Passive Euthanasia Plea of Man in Vegetative State  ||  NCLAT: Amounts Listed As ‘Other Advances’ in Company’s Balance Sheet aren’t Financial Debt under IBC  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Objections to Coc Cannot Bar RP From Challenging Preferential Transactions  ||  J&K&L HC: Courts Should Exercise Caution When Granting Interim Relief in Public Infrastructure Cases  ||  Bombay HC: SARFAESI Sale Invalid if Sale Certificate is Not Issued Prior to IBC Moratorium  ||  Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases  ||  SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension  ||  SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace    

Capri Bathaid Private Limited and Ors. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes - (High Court of Delhi) (02 Mar 2016)

CVAT castigated for frequent illegal exercise of powers

MANU/DE/0501/2016

Sales Tax/VAT

Section 87(6) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 does not enable officers undertaking search and seizure operations under Section 60 of the Act to collect tax dues on the spot from the dealer wholes premises is searched, the Delhi High Court held. The Court also rebuked the Department's failure to issue clear and unambiguous instructions to its officers on the exercise of their powers and jurisdiction. It noted the alarming frequency with which cases regarding flagrant misuse of power were reaching courts. The CVAT was ordered to "issue clear instructions that no VAT Authority will collect in cash or by cheque any alleged tax demand on the spot/field while undertaking a survey, or a search or seizure operation...if any of the officers of the DT and T are found violating any of the instructions, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings."

Relevant : Bansal Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/DE/2865/2015 The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Suraj Prasad Gouri Shankar MANU/SC/0568/1972 Packirisamy vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement I), Tiruvarur, MANU/TN/2475/2005 Section 87 Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004

Tags : DELHI   VAT   OFFICIALS   EXERCISE OF POWER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved