M/S Mehak Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors
Held
The Court, without delving into the merits of the rival contentions regarding the validity of the grounds for sealing, disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus between the parties. The Court ordered that the petitioner would be present at the two premises at 11:00 a.m. on August 5, 2026. In the petitioner's presence, the respondent authorities were directed to de-seal the premises. Subsequently, the Authorized Officer was permitted to carry out the search proceeding, if desired, strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the CGST Act and CGST Rules, 2017. The Court did not decide on the legality of the initial sealing.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mehak Enterprise and its proprietor Surya Prakash Jhawar, approached the Gauhati High Court challenging two Orders of Prohibition in Form GST INS-03. These orders, issued by CGST authorities, sealed the petitioner's office premises and residence on July 25, 2026. The sealing occurred after an Authorization under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, was issued. Officials found the premises locked and were unable to contact the petitioner telephonically to gain entry for executing the search. The Prohibition Orders were passed under Section 67(4) of the CGST Act read with Rule 139(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, due to the petitioner's alleged non-response.
Key Issues
1. Whether the grounds for sealing the petitioner's premises, as stated in the Prohibition Orders, were valid and existed at the time of sealing, under Section 67(4) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The grounds mentioned in the Prohibition Orders were not in existence at the time of sealing. Respondent's contention: The power to seal premises is available under Section 67(4) of the CGST Act. The respondent authorities submitted that if the petitioner cooperated by appearing at the sealed premises on August 5, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., the premises could be de-sealed, and the search proceeding would be carried out following due procedure.
Sections Cited
Section 67, Section 67(2), Section 67(4), Rule 139(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010159682026
2026:GAU-AS:10781
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4047/2026 M/S MEHAK ENTERPRISE AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHAMBER ROAD, JORHAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SURYA PRAKASH JHAWAR, RESIDENT OF DEWAL ROAD, JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785001. 2: SURYA PRAKASH JHAWAR RESIDENT OF DEWAL ROAD JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GHY ASSAM 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIBRUGARH COMMISSIONERATE
Page No.# 2/4 DIBRUGARH ASSAM 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE JORHAT AKSHAY APARTMENT STATION GODOWN ROAD JORHAT-785001 ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SER
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.