Follow Us :

M/S. R.J. Trading Co Vs Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North and Others (Delhi High Court)

Based on: Search and seizure


  • The petitioner, M/S. R.J Trading Co. (RJT) it was observed that company was engaged in the business of trading cigarettes which are supply to it through authorized dealers which are well- known manufacturing companies.
  • It’s also said by law that since, the time it commenced the business it has traded in tobacco products , which includes cigarettes, and in this regard, has been complied with the provisions of not only the CGST Act which also includes the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.
  • It was claimed by RJT that they have deposited tax on scheduled bases as per the protocols.
  • The copies of tax details have been filed along with the said writ petition of prohibition.
  • It is also assertion that necessary filing of (GSTR– 3B) as per the law it has been made by RJT for the period spanning between September to December 2022 and January and February 2021.
  • Hence it was claimed that GSTR -1 was filed from March 2021 as well.
  • It was also found that the concerned officer detained 190 corrugated boxes (cartons) and left them in the custody of Mr. Jaskirat Singh under the superdnama of even date i.e. 05/03.2021.
  • Document was seized from in the exercise of the power under the side section 67(2) of the CGST.

Issues: The issues was raise that a concerned officer can retain the copies of the same cases under prescribed form i.e. GST IN-02 and GST IN -03 which are required for carrying out the future investigation against RJT.


High Court Held

It was held that the search and seizure conducted by the CGST Delhi North Commissioner  at RJT’s premises, even though the jurisdictional (unlawful in nature) were absent. Hence, the order of seize and search was set aside given on 05.03.2021. The requested of Joint Commissioner (AE) Gautam Buth Nagar conveyed through the communication, was only to ascertain as to whether RJT, which was the L2 suppliers of M/S Mridul Tobie Inc. was in existence. It was found that there was no independent application of mind by the Additional Commissioner. Hence, the writ petition as well as the pending application is disposed of in aforesaid teams.

Principle followed:

Under the preview of the law the power to search and seize goods in the terms of provisions of section 67(2) of the CGST Act and corresponding Rule 139(2).It could have been exercise only by the proper officer who is not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, hence the principle followed of section 69 which state the power to arrest. Under this scenario the application filed on behalf of the t said petitioner which was inter alia seeks a direction for setting aside the court decision, directing the provisional release of accepting by the Honorable High Court.

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 *

Search Post by Date
May 2024