NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved