Murliwala Pigment Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the sealing of four business premises, the issuance of DRC-22 dated 12.03.2026, and the provisional attachment of bank accounts by GST authorities.
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST regime, contended that the GST authorities had acted without jurisdiction by sealing business premises and freezing bank accounts merely on the basis of summons and search proceedings. The petitioner argued that under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, formal proceedings commence only upon issuance of a show cause notice and that the authorities lacked power under Section 67 to seal premises and freeze accounts in the manner adopted. Reliance was placed on decisions including M/s. Armour Security (India) Ltd. and Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd..
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Issues Notice as GST Premises Were Sealed Without Any Denial of Access
The respondents opposed the petition, stating that search operations were conducted on 10.03.2026 under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, goods were seized, four premises were sealed, and bank accounts were provisionally attached under Section 83 to safeguard government revenue. The respondents further contended that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not appear despite repeated summons.
