M/S Elora Tobacco Company Limited Through Director Shri Shyan Khemani vs. The Commissioner / Addl. Director General Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court noted that the respondents clarified that the seal was confined only to the cigarette manufacturing machines and not the factory premises. The respondents had no objection to the petitioner using its factory. Regarding the seized books and records, the respondents stated that the petitioner could obtain copies by filing an appropriate application under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had no objection to this procedure. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, holding that there was no seal on the factory premises, allowing the petitioner to enter and use them. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 67(5) of the Act to obtain the documents and records. For the grievance concerning the seal on the cigarette manufacturing machines, the petitioner was granted liberty to take recourse to law. The Court made no expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking directions to release seized books and records necessary for running its factory and to remove the seal from its factory premises. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner and others, clarified that the seal was only on the cigarette manufacturing machines and not on the entire factory premises. The petitioner's counsel then focused on the request for release of seized books and records. The respondents stated that if the petitioner filed an appropriate application under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the necessary records and books would be provided in accordance with the law. The petitioner had no objection to this procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of seized books and records necessary for running its factory, and if so, under which provision of law? The petitioner argued for the release of seized books and records, essential for its operations, as per their relief clause 7(i). The respondents contended that as per Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner must file an appropriate application to obtain copies of necessary records and books, which would then be provided in accordance with the law. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the removal of the seal from its factory premises? The petitioner prayed for the removal of the seal from the factory premises. The respondents clarified that the seal was only on the cigarette manufacturing machines and not on the factory premises, and they had no objection to the petitioner using the factory.