Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST, Delhi & Ors (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) 10287/2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/09/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST (Delhi High Court)

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 can be immediately de-sealed provided the petitioner cooperates

Held by High Court

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 least indefinitely. In these given circumstances, this petition has to succeed. Since the premises have been in the possession of the respondents for over a month, a direction is issued to remove the seal forthwith – within the next 12 hours and hand over the premises to the petitioner.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031