The petitioner can obtain the documents and record are seized by preferring application under section 67(5) of the Act of 2017. There exists no seal on the factory premises and therefore, the petitioner can enter and use the factory premises.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017— Search And Seizure –--The petitioner prayed for directions to the respondents to release the seized books and records necessary for running the factory of the petitioner and to remove the seal of the factory premises with immediate effect. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the seal put by the respondent is only on the cigarette manufacturing machines. There is no seal put on the factory premises as projected by the petitioner. The respondents have no objection if the petitioner uses his factory because the seal is confined to the said machines. The petitioner counsel submitted that as per section 67 the respondents are required to release the seized books and record necessary for running the factory of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents submitted that as per section 67(5), if the petitioner prefers appropriate application for obtaining copies of necessary records and books, the same shall be provided to them in accordance with law.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that there exists no seal on the factory premises and therefore, the petitioner can enter and use the factory premises. The petitioner can obtain the documents and record by preferring application under section 67(5).
The petitioner can obtain the documents and record are seized by preferring application under section 67(5) of the Act of 2017. There exists no seal on the factory premises and therefore, the petitioner can enter and use the factory premises.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017— Search And Seizure –--The petitioner prayed for directions to the respondents to release the seized books and records necessary for running the factory of the petitioner and to remove the seal of the factory premises with immediate effect. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the seal put by the respondent is only on the cigarette manufacturing machines. There is no seal put on the factory premises as projected by the petitioner. The respondents have no objection if the petitioner uses his factory because the seal is confined to the said machines. The petitioner counsel submitted that as per section 67 the respondents are required to release the seized books and record necessary for running the factory of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents submitted that as per section 67(5), if the petitioner prefers appropriate application for obtaining copies of necessary records and books, the same shall be provided to them in accordance with law.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that there exists no seal on the factory premises and therefore, the petitioner can enter and use the factory premises. The petitioner can obtain the documents and record by preferring application under section 67(5).