S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These are four writ petitions by the dealers registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (‘DVAT Act’) raising similar questions concerning the exercise, by the officers under the DVAT Act, of the powers of survey, search, seizure and assessment. They are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

W.P. (C) 8913 of 2014

2. In this writ petition filed by Capri Bathaid Private Limited (CBPL), the facts are that a survey was undertaken in the premises of CBPL by the Department of Trade & Taxes (‘DT&T’) on 4th September 2014. According to the DT&T a shortage of stock of the value of Rs. 6,79,463 and excess of cash in the sum of Rs. 247 was detected. On 22nd July 2014 CBPL filed its return for the first quarter of 2014 declaring local sales turnover of Rs. 86,66,077. Against the gross output tax liability of Rs. 4,44,728, CBPL claimed input tax credit (‘ITC’) of Rs. 5,11,175. CBPL deposited a sum of Rs. 74,500. According to CBPL, the claim of ITC was found matching with the output tax liability declared by the selling dealers as per the verification report in Form 2A and 2B available on the website of the DT&T. On 27th September/1st October 2014 the Assistant Value Added Tax Officer, Enforcement-I (AVATO Enf-I) issued default notices of assessment of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act. This was printed in pre-printed format which stated that “the dealer has not furnished returns/furnished incomplete returns or incorrect returns/furnished a return that does not comply with the requirements of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004/any other person.” None of the above alternative grounds were checked in the order. It was inter alia stated that the dealer had wrongly claimed ITC of Rs. 5,16,028 with regard to some purchase from "the non-functional dealer" during 2013-14 which was being disallowed under Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act. The said order for default assessment of tax and interest for the first quarter of 2014, pegged the taxable turnover at Rs. 90,86,880 and computed the tax at Rs. 5,50,013 and interest at Rs. 5,199. By a separate order of the same date, penalty of Rs. 5,50,013 was levied under Section 86(10) of DVAT Act.

W.P. (C) 1228 of 2015

3. In this writ petition filed by Sanyog Enterprises Private Limited (SEPL), the facts are that SEPL is a registered dealer under the DVAT Act and is engaged in trading and reselling of medicines, diagnostic kits etc. SEPL was initially registered within the territorial jurisdiction of Ward 68. It filed an application for amendment for change of principal place of business which fell under the territorial jurisdiction of Ward 62 with effect from 1st April 2011. It is stated that records of SEPL have not been transferred by the Respondent to Ward 62 till date.

4. SEPL filed its return for the second quarter of 2014 on 18th November 2014 declaring a local turnover of Rs. 115,61,15,039. Against the gross output tax liability of Rs. 5,80,46,355, SEPL claimed ITC of Rs. 5,59,23,931. SEPL deposited a sum of Rs. 15,48,664. On 29th December 2014 one machine generated unsigned notice under Section 59(2) of DVAT Act was issued by the VATO Ward 68 on the website of DT&T under the dealer's login ID directing SEPL to submit details in respect of the purchases made in the fourth quarter 2013-14 and the first quarter 2014-15 from the two dealers, M/s. Krishna International and M/s. S.K. Enterprises.

5. On 5th January 2015 the business premises of SEPL was searched by the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement-I) [AC (Enf I)]. A shortfall of cash in the sum of Rs. 23,60,580 was found. On physical verification, the stock was found matching with the figure noted in the record. SEPL furnished its reply on 7th January 2015 to the unsigned notice dated 29th December 2014 under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act. On 12th January 2015, the A