VIZIEN ORGANICS vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 08.01.2024
+ W.P.(C) 185/2024 & CM. APPLS. 852-53/2024
VIZIEN ORGANICS ….. Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishekh Rastogi, Advocate (Through VC).
For the Respondents: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.
CORAM:-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner, inter-alia, seeks quashing of seizure order dated 16.06.2023, whereby the goods of the petitioner besides books of accounts, registered documents etc. have been seized. Petitioner is, inter-alia, aggrieved by the valuation recorded in the order of seizure.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order of seizure records that the valuation has been arrived at by taking the rate as allegedly informed by the employees of the petitioner. He submits that no employee of the petitioner was ever examined. He submits that the valuation recorded is far in excess of the actual value of the goods. He submits that the order of provisional release merely states that the full value of the goods seized as recorded in the order of seizure is to be taken into account for the purposes of furnishing of Bond for the full value as well as provision of Bank Guarantee equivalent to amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty. He submits that the valuation of the Bond is based on the value of goods and the tax, interest and penalty is pro rata on the basis of the value of the goods. He submits that since the valuation of the goods recorded in the order of seizure is highly inflated, petitioner invariably is being called upon to deposit amount far in excess of the actual value of the goods.
3. Leaned counsel further submits that a show cause notice has been issued by respondent No.5, seeking to confiscate the said goods. Learned counsel further submits that the valuation has been incorrectly recorded. He submits that the authority has taken the Maximum Retail Price of the goods and not taken into various other factors, inter-alia, petitioner gives a discount of 30% on the value of goods to its distributors and as such, valuation of goods cannot be more than Rs.1,87,24998/-, on which the tax component would be only Rs.33,70,499.62 and asking the petitioner to furnish a Bond and deposit a Bank Guarantee for penalty, interest and fine at the Maximum Retail Price, is likely to prejudice the petitioner substantially. He submits that no adjudication has taken place as to the actual value of the goods.
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5, who submits that a show cause notice has already been issued for confiscation of the goods and the matter is pending consideration before respondent No.5.
5. On a query by Court, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that respondent No.5 normally adjudicates on the show cause notice within a period of two to three months from the date of receipt of the reply from the assessee. He submits that 30 days time has been given to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner shall file reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from today.
7. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 within a period of two weeks from today. On reply being filed, respondent No.5 shall endeavor to dispose of the show cause notice within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the reply. Respondent No.5 while adjudicating on the show cause notice shall also permit the petitioner to submits material with regard to the value of the goods as alleged by the petitioner and the alleged discount given by the petitioner as per the trade practice. The assessing authority shall also determine the value of the goods for the purposes of furnishing of bonds, payment of fine, interest, penalty etc.
8. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of either party. Petitioner would be at liberty to avail of further remedies in law, if aggrieved by any order passed by the respondents. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 08, 2024/NA RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
W.P.(C) 185/2024 Page 3 of 3