$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011072552025 + W.P.(C) 19660/2025 RAJ KUMAR GANDHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shefali Kishore, Adv. (through VC) versus THE COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICERS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil-GNCTD). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. This petition is filed seeking directions to the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner as security for de- sealing the business premises. 2. The brief facts are that on 02.07.2013, the officials of the Value Added Tax Department inspected the proprietorship concern of the petitioner, M/s Raj Associates situated at A-138, Gujranwala Town, Delhi. The premises were sealed vide Sealing Memo dated 02.07.2013. On the request of the petitioner for de-sealing, the respondent sought a security deposit of Rs.20,00,000/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.20,00,000/- on 23.07.2013 and the premises were de-sealed on the same day. 2.1 The petitioner was registered as a dealer under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter ‘DVAT Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. By circular dated 19.09.2013, the Amnesty Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) was introduced under the DVAT Act. The petitioner availed the benefit of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:21:22 the Scheme and deposited the entire outstanding tax and penalty in February, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner sought a refund of the security amount from the respondent vide representation dated 14.01.2016, bearing the signatures of the officials confirming receipt. The grievance raised in this petition is that the security amount has not been refunded till date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has complied with the requirements of the Scheme and no demand is pending against the petitioner however, the respondent is not refunding the security amount despite repeated requests. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the security amount was deposited in 2013 and the present writ petition seeking its refund was filed in 2025. It is submitted that no request seeking refund of the security amount was received by the department. The submission is that the petitioner furnished an undertaking at the time of depositing the security amount permitting adjustment against any outstanding demand and that a demand of Rs.45,98,271/- is pending for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 5. The petitioner has annexed copies of the representations seeking refund of the security amount with the petition, bearing signatures of the officials acknowledging receipt. Be that as it may, the respondent has not stated in the reply filed before this Court that the security amount deposited has been adjusted against the demand due. 6. For the reasons best known to the respondent, the outcome of the inspection carried out at the premises of the petitioner is not disclosed. The effect of the petitioner applying under the scheme on the pending demand also requires consideration. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:21:22 7. The contention regarding delay in filing the writ petition is noted to be rejected. Under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax shall be imposed except by authority of law. The withholding of the security amount for de-sealing the business premises in the absence of demand or any other cause for such retention is in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the present writ petition alongwith the representation dated 14.01.2016 as an application for refund of the security amount and decide in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and within six weeks from receipt of copy of the order. 9. If an amount is found due, it shall be refunded within four weeks thereafter alongwith statutory interest, if payable. 10. In order to avoid any further delay and complications, let the petitioner or an authorised representative appear in the office of the respondent on 05.10.2026 at 11:00 AM. 11. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J SHAIL JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/‘JK’ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:21:22