Menzstyl Creation PVT. LTD. Through Its Director Shri Saurabh Agarwal vs. Principal Director General Director General Of GST Intelligence And Ors.
Held
The Court did not decide the substantive issues regarding the validity of the search authorization, Panchnama, GST INS-02, or the summons. Instead, the parties reached a consensus on procedural aspects. The petitioner stated they would be satisfied if their statements were videographed and they were permitted to be accompanied by an advocate who would be present at a visible but not audible distance. The respondents had no objection to this request. The respondents clarified that the recording of statements would necessarily have to be at their office due to logistical difficulties in recording them elsewhere. Consequently, the Court directed that the statement of the petitioner or its officer shall be recorded during business hours (09:00 a.m. to 07:00 p.m.), shall be videographed, and the concerned employee/officer, if accompanied by an advocate, would be allowed to remain at a visible but not audible distance. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, Menzstyl Creation Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a search authorization dated March 2, 2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, permitting Respondents No. 4 & 5 to conduct a search at the petitioner's premises. The petitioner also sought to quash the Panchnama dated March 3, 2023, GST INS-02 dated March 3, 2023, and summons dated March 3, 2023, and March 10, 2023. Further, the petitioner prayed for the return of seized documents and the DVR/Hard Disk of CCTV cameras, and for the respondents to be restrained from conducting investigation proceedings in contravention of the CGST Act, 2017. The dispute involves the search and seizure operations conducted by GST intelligence authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the search authorization dated 02.03.2023, Panchnama dated 03.03.2023, GST INS-02 dated 03.03.2023, and summons dated 03.03.2023 and 10.03.2023, issued by the respondents, are liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of seized documents and the DVR/Hard Disk of CCTV cameras? 3. Whether the respondents are barred from conducting further investigation proceedings against the petitioner in contravention of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for the quashing of the impugned orders and the return of seized items, seeking to restrain further investigation. The respondents, represented by the Principal Director General, Director General of GST Intelligence, did not contest the petitioner's request for videographed statements and the presence of an advocate.
Sections Cited
CGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2023
The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying as under: a. Issue, Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable Writ, Order or direction calling records of the search authorization dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 granting permission to the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for conducting search at the premises of the Petitioner Company located IX/6320, Savitri Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110031 and quash the same; b. Issue, Writ, O
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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.