Facts of the Case
The petitioner, M/s Shakti Oil and Chemical Co.,
challenged an impugned order dated 04.04.2022, whereby its business
premises were sealed by the GST authorities. The petitioner contended that such
sealing was arbitrary and contrary to law, particularly when the issue
was already covered by a prior judgment of the High Court.
The petitioner further alleged non-compliance with
mandatory procedural safeguards, including failure to draw a Panchnama
during the search and seizure process under Section 67 of the CGST/DGST Act.
The primary grievance remained that the sealing of the premises prevented the petitioner from carrying on business activities.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the power to seal premises under Section 67(4) of the CGST/DGST Act
was exercised lawfully.
- Whether
procedural requirements under Section 67(10), including preparation
of Panchnama, were followed.
- Whether
sealing of premises violated the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(g).
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate de-sealing of the business premises.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
sealing action was without authority of law and contrary to settled
legal position.
- The
authorities failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards,
particularly the requirement of drawing a Panchnama.
- The
powers under Section 67(4) are limited and cannot be exercised
arbitrarily.
- Sealing
of premises resulted in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right
to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
- The petitioner sought de-sealing of premises and release of goods.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
Revenue submitted that if the petitioner produces relevant documents,
there would be no objection to de-sealing of the premises.
- The authorities maintained their power to take appropriate action in accordance with law if deficiencies were found.
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition with
specific directions:
- The
petitioner was directed to present relevant documents before the
concerned officer on 13.05.2022 by 11:00 AM.
- The
respondents were directed to de-seal the premises on the same day by
07:00 PM.
- In
case of deficiencies in documents, authorities may take action in
accordance with law, however, sealing shall not continue beyond the
stipulated timeframe.
The Court thus ensured a balanced approach, protecting both procedural compliance and the petitioner’s right to business.
Important Clarification
- The
Court emphasized that sealing of premises cannot be continued
indefinitely.
- Even
if deficiencies exist, authorities must follow due process without
unnecessarily restricting business operations.
- The order reflects that compliance with procedural safeguards under GST law is essential, especially in search and seizure actions.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:1851-DB/RAS12052022CW73902022_202831.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment