Delhi High Court
Vizien Organics vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~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:-
HON'BLE 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
