Limited judicial review of tax searches prevents quashing seizures while statutory adjudication and provisional release remedies remain available.

Challenge to search and seizure under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime was rejected as premature because statutory remedial proceedings (including show cause and provisional release mechanisms) were available; courts should exercise judicial restraint and apply limited judicial review (Wednesbury unreasonableness standard) to the sufficiency of reasons to believe for authorization under the search provisions, without re-opening merits while adjudication is pending. Consequently the petitioners were not entitled to quash the searches or obtain return of seized goods and documents at this stage and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to quash the search and seizure conducted on 18.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 and obtain return of seized goods and documents by way of writ under Article 226 at this stage.

Analysis: The challenge to search and seizure was considered in the context of statutory remedial proceedings already initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including issuance of a show cause notice under Section 74(1) and Section 74(5)(a) and availability of provisional release under Section 67(6) read with Rule 140(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 was applied with the principle of judicial restraint and administrative deference reflected in the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard; the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons to believe recorded for authorisation of search under Section 67(2) is subject to limited judicial scrutiny and cannot be re-opened as a merits appeal while statutory proceedings are pending. The statutory framework also contemplates production of documents and procedures for provisional release and for participation in adjudicatory proceedings, including recording of statements under Section 70.

Conclusion: The petitioners have not established entitlement to quash the search and seizure or obtain return of seized goods and documents by writ at this stage; petitions are premature and therefore dismissed.

---