Section 67(4) GST Challenge: Business Premises Must Be Desealed Despite Document Deficiencies

The HC addressed a petition challenging the sealing of business premises under Section 67(4) of DGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed procedural violations, including failure to draw a Panchnama during search and seizure. While respondents indicated willingness to deseal if proper documents were provided, the Court directed the petitioner to submit relevant documents by 11:00 A.M. on 13.05.2022, after which the premises were to be desealed by 7:00 P.M. the same day. The Court specified that even if document deficiencies were found, the premises should not remain sealed beyond the stipulated timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
Sealing of business premises under Section 67(4) of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 without proper procedure and documentation.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash an impugned order dated 04.04.2022 and to deseal the business premises immediately, citing a previous decision of the Hon'ble Court. The petitioner also requested a direction to enforce their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petitioner asked for costs for malicious prosecution, highlighting non-compliance with the procedure under Sec.67(4) and Sec. 67(10) of the CGST/DGST Act, emphasizing the absence of drawing a Panchnama during search and seizure. The petitioner further requested a practice direction for the exercise of power of search and seizure under Section 67 of the CGST/DGST Act/Rules. The Court noted the prolix nature of the prayers but acknowledged the principal grievance regarding the sealed premises.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the powers to seal under Section 67(4) of the Act are limited to specific circumstances mentioned in the provision. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel stated that if the petitioner provides the required documents, there would be no objection to de-sealing the premises. The Court, after considering the submissions, issued directions for resolution. The authorized representative of the petitioner was instructed to present relevant documents before the concerned officer by 11:00 A.M. on 13.05.2022. Subsequently, the respondents were directed to de-seal the premises by 07:00 P.M. on the same day. Any deficiency in the documents provided would lead to appropriate actions as per the law, but the sealing was not to continue beyond the specified timeframe. The Court ordered the case file to be consigned to the record, thereby concluding the matter.

---