Case Law Details
Anopsinh Kiritsinh Sarvaiya Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Godown of dealer cannot be seal by GST authorities without having reasons to believe that goods stored were liable for confiscation
In the given case, the writ applicant claims to be an agriculturist. It is his case that he owns a godown bearing No.14, situated at the Marketing Yard at Gondal, District: Rajkot. According to him, the said Godown No.14, situated at the Marketing Yard has been given on rent to five distinct entities, namely, (I) Ajayraj & Co. (ii) Dharamraj Exports (iii) Kamani Exports (iv) R.L. Enterprise and (5) Ruturaj & Co. It is the case of the writ applicant that this particular godown is used by the above referred entities for the purpose of storing agricultural produce like cotton bales and cotton yarn. According to him, the relationship is that of landlord and tenant.
The authorities under the CGST Act visited the godown, and in exercise of power under section 67 of the Act, applied seal on the godown.
We may straightway, once again, look into the sealing memos. The plain reading of the contents of the sealing memos would indicate that after the seal was affixed, the authorities had to stop further action for the reasons recorded in the memos. The reasons recorded in the memos are as under;
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
