submitted during the investigation
Case Title | Shakti Oil and Chemical vs Commissioner of DGST Delhi & Ors |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Poonam A. Bamba |
Citation | 2022 (5) GSTPanacea 352 HC Delhi W.P.(C) 7390/2022 |
Judgement Date | 12-May-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Mr. A.K Babbar and Surendera Kumar |
Council for Respondent | Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Satyakam and Vijay Thakran |
Section | Section 67 of the CGST Act |
In favour of | Petitioner |
The Delhi High Court, bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Poonam A. Bamba, held that business premises ordered to be de-sealed to carry on the business operations.
submitted during the investigation
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to de-seal the business premises of the petitioner immediately as the issue is covered by decision of this court in CWP No. 10287/2018 and as it is in violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, to carry on the business, guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Further the issue being covered, the petitioner prayed for awarding cost for malicious prosecution without authority and the respondent acted in complete disregard of Section 67(4) & 67(10) of the CGST/DGST Act as there is no mention of drawing a Panchnama. It was also prayed to direct the respondent to release the goods lying in the business premises so as to enable the petitioner to carry on the business.
It was contended on the behalf of the petitioner that powers to seal under Section 67(4) of the DGST/CGST Act, 2017 are confined to the situation adverted to in the said provision.
On the other hand, it was submitted on the behalf of the respondent that if the petitioner provides the relevant documents, the revenue will have no objection if the said business premise is de-sealed.
submitted during the investigation
COURT HELD
The Hon’ble Court after considering the submissions and facts of the case observed that the prayer of the writ petition is explanatory enough and the principal grievance as conceded on the behalf of the petitioner is that the business premise is sealed.
The Hon’ble Court, as observed above, disposed of the writ petition with the directions that the authorized representative of the petitioner will appear, with relevant documents, before the concerned officer on 13.05.2022 lates by 11 A.M. The respondent will de-seal the subject business premises tomorrow i.e., 13.05.2022 by 7:00 P.M. Further if the documents produced are found to be deficient, appropriate steps will be taken by the respondent, in accordance with law. However, the sealing will not continue, beyond the time mentioned herein.
submitted during the investigation
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
From the above case we can conclude that that powers to seal under Section 67(4) of the DGST/CGST Act, 2017 are confined to the situation where appropriate documents are not submitted by the applicant during investigation.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: