https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368288 The court held in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer, challenging the sealing of its business premises by DGST officials under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found the complete sealing of premises illegal as the authorization for inspection did not name the assessee. Emphasizing the need for proper authorization and proportionality in enforcement actions, the court directed the removal of the seal and return of the premises to the petitioner within 12 hours. This decision underscores the importance of statutory compliance and fair enforcement practices by tax authorities. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368288 The court held in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer, challenging the sealing of its business premises by DGST officials under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found the complete sealing of premises illegal as the authorization for inspection did not name the assessee. Emphasizing the need for proper authorization and proportionality in enforcement actions, the court directed the removal of the seal and return of the premises to the petitioner within 12 hours. This decision underscores the importance of statutory compliance and fair enforcement practices by tax authorities. Case-Laws GST Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368288