M/S Napin Impex Private Ltd VS Commissioner Of Dgst Delhi

In the case concerning the petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in the trade of PVC raisins and other food items like beverages, the grievance was brought before the court regarding the sealing of its business premises. This action was carried out by the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST) department, ostensibly under the powers granted by Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that this sealing was illegal.

The case highlights a sequence of events beginning on 29th August 2018, when Revenue authorities, specifically officials from the DGST, visited the petitioner’s business premises. During this visit, the officials directed the petitioner to produce books of accounts and other related documents. However, the petitioner was unable to comply immediately, as these documents were not readily available at the time of the visit. Consequently, the petitioner requested a 24-hour period to gather and present the required documentation.

Given the situation, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s complaint about the sealing of the premises and issued a notice. Mr. Gautam Narayan, the Additional Standing Counsel, accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents. This suggests that the respondents, likely representing the DGST department or related authorities, have been formally informed of the legal challenge posed by the petitioner. The court’s involvement indicates a potential judicial review of the DGST’s actions under the CGST Act, particularly the legality of the premises’ sealing in the context of the petitioner’s business activities and their compliance with the law.

This case raises significant questions about the application and interpretation of Section 67 of the CGST Act, which empowers authorities to inspect, search, and seize properties under certain conditions. The petitioner’s argument that the sealing was illegal suggests a possible contention over whether the DGST followed due process or overstepped its authority during the visit and subsequent sealing of the business premises. The resolution of this case will likely involve a thorough examination of both the procedural aspects of the DGST’s actions and the petitioner’s compliance with the requirements of the CGST Act.

In the case presented, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents concerning the petitioner’s grievance about the sealing of its business premises by the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST) authorities. The sealing was conducted under the purported authority of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that this action was illegal.

The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in trading various items including PVC raisins and beverages, had its business premises visited by Revenue authorities on August 29, 2018. During this visit, DGST officials demanded the production of the petitioner’s books of accounts and other relevant documents. However, the petitioner was unable to immediately provide these documents and requested 24 hours to do so. Despite this request, the authorities initially ordered a temporary sealing of the premises.

The situation escalated the following day, on August 30, 2018, when the premises were completely sealed by the DGST officials. The petitioner contends that the DGST officials did not have the statutory authority or proper authorization to carry out such an indefinite sealing of the premises. This action, according to the petitioner, was a misuse of power and a violation of the legal provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the DGST argued that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the authorities. Specifically, the petitioner had not yet produced the requested books of accounts and other materials, which were essential for the investigation. The counsel further stated that the premises could be de-sealed immediately if the petitioner agreed to cooperate and produce the necessary documents.

The relevant provisions of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which govern the power of authorities in such cases, were also highlighted. However, the specific excerpt of Section 67 applicable to this case was not provided in the text.

This case underscores the tension between the enforcement powers of tax authorities and the rights of businesses to operate without undue interference. The resolution of this matter will likely hinge on whether the DGST’s actions were within the bounds of their statutory authority and whether the petitioner fulfills their obligation to provide the required documentation.

In the legal matter at hand, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel, accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner’s main issue concerns the sealing of its business premises by the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST) authorities, which the petitioner claims was carried out under the pretext of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that this action was unlawful.

The petitioner, who is a registered dealer engaged in trading products such as PVC raisins and various food items including beverages, provided a brief account of the events leading up to the sealing of the premises. The petitioner’s business premises were visited by revenue authorities on August 29, 2018. During this visit, officials from the DGST directed the petitioner to produce its books of accounts and other related documents. The petitioner, however, was unable to provide these documents immediately and requested 24 hours to do so. Despite this request, the authorities proceeded to temporarily seal the premises.

On the following day, August 30, 2018, the premises were fully sealed by the authorities. The petitioner contends that the DGST does not have the statutory power or proper authorization to carry out such an indefinite sealing of the premises, and claims that the manner in which the DGST has acted is without legal justification.

On behalf of the DGST, learned counsel appearing on advance notice, argued that the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the authorities. According to the counsel, the petitioner has neither produced the required books of accounts nor provided any other materials as requested by the DGST. The counsel further submitted that, based on the instructions available to them, the premises could be de-sealed immediately if the petitioner agrees to cooperate with the authorities.

The relevant portion of Section 67 of the CGST Act was also highlighted, which grants the authorities the power to inspect business premises if it is believed that the taxable person has suppressed any transactions related to the supply of goods or services, evaded taxes, or kept goods in a manner likely to cause tax evasion. This section also allows the authorization of central tax officers to inspect any place of business, warehouse, or other relevant locations associated with the taxable person.

In conclusion, the legal dispute revolves around whether the DGST’s action of sealing the petitioner’s business premises was within the bounds of the law, particularly under the provisions of Section 67 of the CGST Act, or if it was an overreach of authority lacking proper legal backing. The case underscores the tension between the need for compliance with tax regulations and the rights of businesses to operate without undue interference.

In this legal matter, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents in a case where the petitioner, a registered dealer involved in the trade of PVC raisins and other food items, challenges the sealing of its business premises by the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST) authorities. The sealing was purportedly conducted under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that this action by the DGST is illegal and lacks proper statutory authority.

The key events leading up to the dispute began on August 29, 2018, when DGST officials visited the petitioner’s business premises and demanded the production of books of accounts and other relevant documents. Since the petitioner was not in immediate possession of these documents, they requested 24 hours to produce them. Despite this request, the DGST officials initially ordered a temporary sealing of the premises on the same day. The next day, August 30, 2018, the premises were completely sealed.

The petitioner contends that the DGST does not have the statutory power to indefinitely seal the premises, as has been done in this case. The petitioner’s legal counsel argues that the sealing is an overreach of authority and that the DGST’s actions are not supported by the provisions of the CGST Act.

In response, the counsel representing the DGST argued that the petitioner has not cooperated with the ongoing investigation, as they have neither produced the requested books of accounts nor any other relevant materials. The DGST maintains that under the instructions provided to them, the premises can be de-sealed immediately if the petitioner cooperates and provides the necessary documents.

The legal basis for the DGST’s actions is found in Section 67 of the CGST Act, which allows for the inspection, search, and seizure of goods, documents, or other items when there is suspicion of tax evasion or contravention of the Act. Specifically, the section grants the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, the authority to search and seize goods or documents if there is reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation or are relevant to any proceedings under the Act. In cases where it is not practical to seize the goods, the officer may issue an order preventing the owner or custodian from removing or dealing with the goods without prior permission.

The petitioner’s main grievance is that the DGST has exceeded its authority by indefinitely sealing the premises, which they argue is not justified under the Act. The case hinges on whether the DGST’s actions are within the scope of the powers granted under Section 67 of the CGST Act and whether the petitioner’s rights have been unduly infringed by the prolonged sealing of their business premises.

The provision outlines the protocol for handling documents, books, or other items seized by an officer under the Act. It specifies that such items shall only be kept by the officer for as long as necessary to conduct an examination or to facilitate any related inquiry or proceedings. Once the examination or proceedings are completed, the seized items must be returned to the person from whom they were taken, provided they were not used as the basis for issuing a notice under the Act or its rules. This return of documents, books, or things must occur within a maximum period of thirty days following the issuance of the notice. Essentially, this ensures that the retention of seized materials is limited to what is required for legal processes and establishes a clear timeframe for their return if they are not needed for the ongoing procedures.

The authorized officer, as outlined in sub-section (2), is granted specific powers to enforce compliance during inspections or investigations. This authority includes the ability to seal or forcibly open doors of premises if necessary. Additionally, the officer can break open any almirahs, electronic devices, boxes, or other receptacles where goods, accounts, registers, or documents that are suspected to be hidden or concealed might be stored. This power is exercised when access to these items or locations is denied by the person being investigated or inspected. The intent behind these measures is to ensure that the officer can fully access and review all relevant materials that are essential for the investigation or examination process, even if there is resistance or obstruction in accessing these items. This provision ensures that officers can effectively carry out their duties in situations where access to important evidence or documentation is being hindered.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law