The main legal point established in the judgment is that the search procedure under Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017 must be conducted in accordance with the law, and voluntary actions of the petitioner during the search can influence the court's decision.

ORDER

1. The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court while praying for the following reliefs:

i. To hold that the proceeding initiated under Section 67 of the Act us void ab initio;

ii. To quash authorization letter dated 21/01/2022 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure P/4);

iii To quash the impugned order dated 27/01/2022 (Annexure P/11) passed by the respondent No.5.

iv To direct the respondent department to conduct stock verification as per law, without being influenced by stock verification report dated 25/01/2022.

v Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any order writ/order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case.

2. The facts reveal that the premises of the petitioner was searched at the instance of the revenue in exercise of powers conferred under Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017 and thereafter the petitioner since had certain grievances as regards the manner of search, made an application before respondent No.4 and prayed that stock of coal lying in the premises be measured and checked again as earlier on 25/01/2022, the team which carried out the search did not seize any material and left the premises.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is being assailed inasmuch as the search was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017 inasmuch as to carry out the search under the provisions of Goods and Service Tax Act, the procedure as laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is applicable which inter alia stipulates the search is required to be carried out in the presence of two witnesses but in the present case, no independent witnesses were present and respondent did not seize any material from the premises of the petitioner, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Revenue to remeasure the stock of coal lying in the premises.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority should have reasons to believe that search is required while issuing authorization for inspection/search under Section 67 the M.P. GST Act, 2017 and in the present case there was no satisfaction arrived at by the Commissioner State Tax, while authorizing the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax to carry out the search. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority should have recorded the reasons which necessitated the search in the premises of the present case. Thus assail is to the order of authorization dated 21/01/2022 as well as the order dated 27/01/2022 by which the application of petitioner has been turned down by respondent No.5 to re-measure the stock of coal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposes the application and submits that the entire procedure was carried out in accordance with law and the search was carried out in the presence of independent witness. Even the nephew of petitioner namely Arihant Jain was also available at the time of search and signed the Panchnama, therefore the petitioner cannot allege that the search was carried out in violation of statutory provisions.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there are two independent witnesses namely Anil Dahiya and Arvind Patel signed panchnama and submits that the search was carried out strictly in accordance with law in the presence of representative of the petitioner and none of the representatives who were available at the time of search, raised any kind of objection as regards manner in which the search was carried out.

5.1 Learned counsel further submits that it is not the case of Revenue that any material has been seized. On the contrary, during course of search the liability was admitted by the petitioner itself and therefore, the action to challenge the process at this stage, is grossly misconceived, thus has prayed that the petition deserve to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival contentions and submiss