Maps Global. vs. Union Of INDIA. & Ors.

Held

The Court found the petitioner's submissions to be unacceptable and implausible. The Local Commissioner's report, supported by photographic evidence, clearly established that the registered premises was not in the occupation of the petitioner but was being used as a go-down by another party. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel's statement that the petitioner was shifting prior to filing the writ petition was not made earlier when confronted with the revenue's submissions. Furthermore, the Proprietor of the petitioner, in an affidavit dated 04.11.2019, provided the same registered address, despite claiming to have vacated on 23.10.2019. The Court concluded that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and was attempting to evade scrutiny by the authorities. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Maps Global, filed a writ petition challenging actions taken by GST authorities. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West, stated that the petitioner was classified as a 'Risky Exporter' and notices issued to its registered address were returned unserved as the premises were found locked. A physical verification also found the premises locked. The petitioner claimed reliance on a Panchnama dated 02.10.2019, purportedly prepared at its registered address, and an order of seizure from the same date. To resolve the dispute regarding the petitioner's presence at its registered address, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner's report indicated that the premises at 130, Plot No. 8, Mangalam Paradise Mall, Rohini, New Delhi, was found locked and being used as a go-down by another entity, with photographic evidence supporting this.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was in occupation of its registered premises at 130, Plot No. 8, Mangalam Paradise Mall, Rohini, New Delhi, as claimed, for the purpose of receiving notices and conducting official proceedings? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the petitioner's presence and compliance with statutory requirements). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner asserted its presence at the registered address and relied on a Panchnama and seizure order dated 02.10.2019, claiming these were conducted at the said premises. Later, it was submitted that the petitioner had vacated the premises on 23.10.2019 and placed reliance on statements recorded by the Local Commissioner. Revenue's contention: The respondent authorities argued that the petitioner was a 'Risky Exporter', notices were returned unserved due to the premises being locked, and physical verification confirmed the premises were locked and being used as a go-down by a third party, contradicting the petitioner's claims.