Gauhati High Court bars coercive GST recovery against Deepak Construction Co., directs adherence to guidelines

In a significant interim order, the Gauhati High Court has directed GST authorities to refrain from taking coercive steps against a taxpayer for the discharge of any liability during an ongoing search proceeding. The court also mandated strict adherence to the prescribed GST investigation guidelines, reinforcing the procedural safeguards available to businesses under the indirect tax regime.

The order, passed by a single bench of Justice Manish Choudhury, came in a writ petition filed by Deepak Construction Co., a partnership firm based in Tinsukia, Assam. The petitioner challenged the conduct of state tax officials who had been conducting a search at its principal place of business since September 15, 2026, under an authorization issued in Form GST INS-01 under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (AGST Act).

Court Restrains Coercive Recovery

The petitioner alleged that although the search had not resulted in any formal order of seizure or prohibition, tax officials remained present at its premises throughout business hours. During this period, the petitioner claimed that officials continuously pressured it to discharge a liability allegedly arising from the wrongful availment of input tax credit benefits, even while its GST registration remained under suspension.

Relying on Instruction No. 01-2022-2023 [GST – Investigation] dated May 25, 2022, the petitioner argued that directing a taxpayer to discharge any liability during an ongoing search was contrary to the guidelines issued by the GST authorities themselves. The instruction is intended to standardize investigation procedures and prevent undue harassment of taxpayers.

The state authorities opposed the petition, submitting that there were serious allegations of wrongful availment of benefits and contraventions of the CGST and AGST Acts. They assured the court that if the petitioner had not voluntarily discharged any liability, the department would follow the statutory procedures for demand and recovery as prescribed under the GST laws.

Court's Directions

After hearing the parties, the court issued the following interim directions:

  • The petitioner shall be allowed to carry out its normal business activities without interference from the search team.
  • No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for the discharge of any liability during the inspection or search proceeding.
  • The respondent authorities shall strictly adhere to the guidelines contained in Instruction No. 01-2022-2023 [GST – Investigation] dated May 25, 2022, until the next date of hearing.

The court specifically ordered: “there shall not be any coercive steps by the respondent authorities on the petitioner for discharge of any liability during the inspection / search proceeding and there shall be due adherence to the Guidelines laid in Instruction no. 01/2022-2023 [GST – Investigation] dated 25.05.2022 till the returnable date.”

The matter has been adjourned to October 12, 2026, for further hearing.

Legal Implications

The order is significant because it clarifies the limits of GST search and seizure powers. While Section 67 of the CGST Act empowers authorized officers to search premises and inspect documents, it does not permit them to demand immediate payment of alleged tax dues during the search itself. The instruction relied upon by the petitioner explicitly states that investigation proceedings should not be used to coerce recovery, and that demand and recovery must follow the separate adjudication process under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.

Legal experts note that this order provides much-needed clarity for taxpayers who often face pressure from tax officials during field investigations. By directing adherence to the 2022 guidelines, the Gauhati High Court has reinforced the principle that a search is an information-gathering exercise, not a recovery proceeding. The interim protection ensures that businesses can continue their operations without disruption while the investigation is underway.

Impact on GST Practice

This ruling is likely to have a calming effect on the GST investigation landscape. Taxpayers undergoing search proceedings can now cite this order to resist any attempt by authorities to extract on-the-spot payments. It also underscores the importance of the GST Investigation Guidelines, which many assessees may not be fully aware of.

Practitioners should note that the interim protection is in place only until the returnable date, and the final outcome will depend on the merits of the case. However, the court’s willingness to intervene at an early stage signals that the judiciary will scrutinize coercive actions that bypass statutory procedures.

Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court’s order serves as a timely reminder that GST authorities must exercise their search powers within the bounds of the law and follow the established guidelines. For Deepak Construction Co., the immediate relief is a respite from what it described as continuous pressure to pay disputed tax. As the matter proceeds, the legal community will watch closely for any further clarifications on the interplay between search proceedings and recovery under the GST regime.