IMPORTANT POINT
The sufficiency of the reasons for forming a belief under Section 67 of the CGST Act is not subject to judicial review as long as there is material or information providing a rational basis for the belief.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner is an individual and carries on the business of trading in PVC Resins under the name of his sole proprietorship concern, M/s Mahan Polymers. The petitioner is registered under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act') and has been assigned the Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN): 07AAPPG5295A1ZP.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the search stated to have been conducted in his business premises (3460/1, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035) under Section 67 of the CGST Act pursuant to the authorization issued in FORM GST INS-01 dated 11.11.2022. The petitioner claims that during the course of the search, he was compelled to deposit the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rs.5,00,000/- under CGST Act and Rs.5,00,000/- under the Delhi Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the DGST Act')]. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that directions be issued to the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as being collected illegally. In addition, the petitioner also prays that directions be issued for supply of the copy of FORM GST INS-01.

3. The petitioner has challenged the search stated to have been conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act on principally two grounds. First, he claims that the authorization for the said search was issued mechanically and that there were no reasons to believe that any of the grounds as set out under Section 67(1)(a) of the CGST Act were satisfied. Second, he states that the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act are illegal as prior to the said search, the Delhi Goods & Service Tax Authorities had initiated similar proceedings, by conducting a search at the petitioner's principal place of business on 18.10.2022. The petitioner contends that the proceedings by central o fficers on the same grounds is proscribed by virtue of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

4. The petitioner claims that his premises were visited by a team of officers at 5:30 pm on 12.11.2022 who conducted the search pursuant to an authorization stated to have been issued by Additional Commissioner, Anti Evasion CGST, Delhi North, under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act. According to the petitioner, during the search proceedings, the officers compelled the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- CGST and Rs.5,00,000/- DGST). He claims that at about 9:00 pm, he was made to fill up FORM GST DRC-03 on the laptop carried by the officers of the visiting team. He claims that at the material time he was under the control of the officers of respondent no.3 and was interrogated on account of alleged inadmissible Input Tax Credit (hereafter `ITC') availed in respect of supplies purchased from one M/s Hari Om Chemicals. The petitioner claims that he was neither given the copy of the authorization nor was he informed of the reasons as to why the search was being conducted. The petitioner also claims that his statement was recorded but he was neither provided a copy of the statement nor the punchnama.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had sent a letter dated 14.11.2022, calling upon the respondents not to proceed further in view of Section 6(b)(2) of the CGST Act. He contends that the petitioner had also sought to retract the statement forcibly recorded on the said date. However, the petitioner has not been provided a copy of his statement as yet.

6. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner prays as under:

"a. Your Lordship may kindly, kindly call for the records and be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

b. To declare the entire search dated 12.11.2022 and statement recorded of Proprietor dated 12.11.2022 as improper and illegal and quash the impugned search Dt. 12.11.2022 and consequential proceedings being undertaken by Respondent No. 3 including getting forcibly filled DRC-03 of Rs.10.00 lakhs through their