2018 (10) TMI 254 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 578 (Del.) – Sealing of Business Premises – petitioner’s grievance is that the sealing of its business premises on behalf of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST), ostensibly under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal – It is claimed that the authorization does not name the assessee; it only lists the two premises i.e. the business premises at Netaji Subhash Place and the DSIDC Unit at Narela.
–
Held that:- Given the plain text of the statute i.e. especially Section 69(4), which merely authorizes the concerned officials to search the premises and if resistance is offered, break-open the lock or any other almirah, electrical device, box, etc. containing books and documents, the complete sealing of the premises, in the opinion of the court is per se illegal. Even if it were assumed that the respondents temporarily restrained the petitioner from using its premises, for a few hours, till
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
es Tax Act, 2017, is illegal. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which trades inter alia in PVC raisins and other food items such as beverages. The petitioner alleges that its premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed production of books of accounts and other documents. Since the petitioner was not in possession of those, it sought 24 hours time for the same. Apparently a temporary sealing of the premises was ordered. On the next date i.e. 30.08.2018, the premises were completely sealed. It is contended that the DGST lacks statutory power and authorization to indefinitely seal the premises in a manner it has proceeded to do so. Learned counsel for the DGST, appearing on advance notice, submitted that till date the petitioner has not cooperated as it has neither produced the books of accounts nor other materials. It is further submitted that according to the instructions available to them, the premises ca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the business of transporting goods or the owner or the operator of warehouse or godown or any other place. (2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer: Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
GST INS-I relied upon by the Revenue states as follows : Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Department of Trade & Taxes Enforcement Branch Vyapar Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-02 No.72 Date : 29/08/2018 FORM GST INS-1 AUTHORISATION FOR INSPECTION OR SEARCH [See rule 139(1)] To, Sh. Ajay Chaturvedi, Asstt. Commissioner (E-1) Whereas information has been presented before me and I have reasons to 'believe that- (i) 405, 4th Floor, KLJ Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. has suppressed transactions relating to supply of goods and /or services has suppressed transactions relating to the stock of goods in hand has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under the Act has claimed refund in excess of his entitlement under the Act has indulged in contravention of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder to evade tax under this Act. OR Goods liable to confiscation/ documents relevant to the proceedings under the Act are secreted in the busine
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ent and for fine under the Act read with section 179, 181, 191 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code . Given under my hand & seal this 29th day of August, 2018. Valid for 03 Day(s). It is claimed that the authorization does not name the assessee; it only lists the two premises i.e. the business premises at Netaji Subhash Place and the DSIDC Unit at Narela. Given the plain text of the statute i.e. especially Section 69(4), which merely authorizes the concerned officials to search the premises and if resistance is offered, break-open the lock or any other almirah, electrical device, box, etc. containing books and documents, the complete sealing of the premises, in the opinion of the court is per se illegal. Even if it were assumed that the respondents temporarily restrained the petitioner from using its premises, for a few hours, till the books of accounts are made available in order to secure the evidence available in the premises, that could not have assumed the life on its own , at lea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =