Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the search and seizure action under the GST law and the consequent seizure of goods and records was maintainable at the stage when proceedings under Section 74 had already been initiated, and whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate release of the seized goods in writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: The petition arose from search and seizure proceedings conducted by GST under the statutory power of search. The Court noted that, after completion of the search and seizure, a notice under Section 74 had already been issued and the petitioners were required to participate in those proceedings before assailing any eventual order in accordance with law. Applying the principles of judicial restraint and limited review under Article 226, the Court held that the sufficiency of the material or reasons leading to the search authorization could not be examined as if in appeal. On the request for release of seized goods, the Court recorded that the respondents were willing to release the goods on production of valid documents, but such documents had not been produced.
Conclusion: The challenge to the search and seizure was held to be premature and no interference under Article 226 was warranted. The claim for release of the seized goods was also not accepted on the facts placed before the Court.