Ms J M Jain Prop Sh Jeetmal Choraria vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, MS J M JAIN PROP SH JEETMAL CHORARIA, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of officers from Respondent No. 2 (DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit) and Respondent No. 3. The petitioner alleged that on December 10, 2024, officers visited their premises for an inspection/search, took away records and documents without a Panchnama or Seizure Memo (INS-02), which they deemed illegal. The petitioner also challenged subsequent summons dated December 10, 2024, December 18, 2024, January 15, 2025, and January 22, 2025, issued by Respondent No. 3, claiming they were arbitrary, malicious, and motivated to harass the petitioner. The petitioner sought quashing of these summons and action against the officers involved.

Held

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found itself unable to appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner or to be convinced that the petition was liable to be entertained at that stage. The Court specifically noted that the respondents had issued more than four summons to the management of the writ petitioner, and all of them had gone unanswered. Furthermore, the Court observed that the challenge to the commencement of the investigation was based on extremely vague grounds, as evident from the petition's averments and the oral arguments presented. The dismissal was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties on merit, meaning the underlying issues could still be addressed through appropriate legal channels if the petitioner complied with procedural requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the visit by officers of Respondent No. 2 on December 10, 2024, to the petitioner's premises for inspection/search, and the subsequent taking away of records and documents without a Panchnama and Seizure Memo (INS-02), was illegal and without authority of law, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and its Rules? 2. Whether the summons dated December 10, 2024, December 18, 2024, January 15, 2025, and January 22, 2025, issued by Respondent No. 3, were arbitrary, malicious, motivated, and ultra vires to the CGST Act, 2017, solely to harass the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the inspection/search and seizure were conducted illegally without proper documentation (Panchnama and Seizure Memo) and that the subsequent summons were issued with malice in law, intended to harass them. The respondents, while not explicitly detailing their arguments in the provided text, were represented and the Court's decision implies they contended that the actions were lawful and the petitioner had not responded to the summons. The Court noted that the challenge was based on vague grounds and that the petitioner had not responded to multiple summons.