SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Shakti Oil and Chemical Co. - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of DGST Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7390 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2022




Sealing of business premises under Section 67(4) of the CGST Act must comply with constitutional rights, specifically the fundamental right to conduct business as protected under Article 19(1)(g).

Headnote:(A) Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 67(4) - Petition for de-sealing of business premises - Petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on business contended to have been violated by sealing - Court ordered de-sealing pending a review of submitted documents - Respondents to de-seal premises by specified timeframe. (Paras 3, 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the sealing of their business premises under Section 67(4) of the Act, asserting this act violated their constitutional right to conduct business. The petitioner sought de-sealing based on previous court decisions.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the petitioner to present required documents for review, with stipulations for timely de-sealing pending further legal actions if deficiencies arise in documentation.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the sealing of the premises was justified under the relevant provisions of the taxation law and potential infringement of the petitioner’s business rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for procedural compliance in sealing premises under Section 67(4), highlighting the balance between revenue enforcement and the petitioner’s right to operate a business.

Result: Petition allowed with directions for de-seal by specific date.

Table of Content
1. notice acceptance and final hearing permission. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner’s grievances regarding sealing of business premises. (Para 3)
3. debate on the powers to seal under gst provisions. (Para 4)
4. court's directives for de-sealing premises. (Para 5)
5. conclusion and consignment of the case file. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Issue notice.

1.1. Mr. Satyakam accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

3. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:

"a. Issue a Writ, order direction quashing the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) and ordering de-sealing of business premises immediately as the issue is covered by Decision of this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 10287/2018 (P-6) and as such also order for enforcement of petitioner fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to carry on his business;

b. Petitioner prays for awarding of cost for malicious prosecution and that too without authority of law and in defiance to law already settled by this Hon'ble Court in CWP. No. 10287/2018. Moreover the Respondent had acted disregarding the procedure as set out under Sec.67(4) and Sec. 67(10) of the CGST/DGST Act as there is no mention of drawing a Panchnama which is mandatory in the search and seizure. Petitioner also prays for a direction to Respondent No. 1 to issue practice direction with regard to exercise of power of search and seizure U/s 67 of the CGST/DGST Act/Rules.

c. To direct the Respondent to de-seal the business premises and release goods lying in the business premises in order to enable petitioner to carry on his business. However, they may take whatever record/documents from premises as required by them by giving copy of the same to petitioner."

3.1. Although the prayers made in the writ petition are prolix, Mr A.K. Babbar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, concedes that the principal grievance of the petitioner is that its premises lie sealed.

4. According to Mr Babbar, the powers to seal under Section 67(4) of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act,2017/Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 are confined to the fact and situation adverted to in the said provision.

4.1. Mr. Satyakam, on the other hand, says that in case the petitioner produces the relevant documents, the respondents/revenue will have no objection to the subject premises being de-sealed.

5. According to us, the writ petition can be disposed of, with the following directions:

(i) The authorized representative of the petitioner will present himself/herself with the relevant documents before the concerned officer tomorrow i.e., 13.05.2022, albeit latest by 11:00 A.M.

(ii) The respondents/revenue will de-seal the subject premises tomorrow i.e., 13.05.2022 by 07:00 P.M.

(iii) In case the documents produced by the petitioner are found to be deficient, appropriate steps, in accordance with the law, will be taken. However, sealing will not continue, beyond the timeframe indicated herein.

5.1. It is ordered accordingly.

6. The case file shall stand consigned to the record.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top