Case Details: Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Tax GST - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
- Avi Singh, Tanuj Bhadana & Shikhar Garg, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Atul Tripathi, V.K. Attri, Advs., Pawan Kumar & Rajesh Kumar, Superintendents for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, inspection was conducted pursuant to the order passed by the Special Judge, whereby the learned Special Judge had directed to check the source of Rs. 50,00,000/- received by the petitioner. The petitioner filed writ petition and challenged the search authorisation by contending that none of grounds as set out in search authorization were borne out from information or material on record of revenue authority.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that there were no reasons for the department to initiate the search against the petitioner under section 67(1) of the CGST Act and the record did not indicate that any further investigation was conducted prior to authorizing the inspection under section 67(1) of the CGST Act.
Also, the authorization was patently erroneous as none of grounds as set out in authorization for search were borne out from information or material on record. Therefore, the Court directed department to return all documents to the petitioner since the conditions for inspection under section 67(1) of the CGST Act were not satisfied.
The post Search Authorization Was Erroneous If Grounds Set Out in Authorization Were Not Borne Out From Information on Record | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
