9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 639 - HC - GSTRemoval of seal of the factory premises with immediate effect - respondents fairly submits that the seal put by the respondent is only on the cigarette manufacturing machines and is no seal put on the factory premises - section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Response of respondents is that 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection - thus, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this petition - the petition is disposed off by holding that there exists no seal on the factory premises and therefore, the petitioner can enter and use the factory premises.
Issues:
Petition for relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding seized books and records, removal of seal on factory premises, and other related matters. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under article 226 seeking various reliefs, including the release of seized books and records necessary for running the factory, removal of the seal on the factory premises, and other suitable reliefs. During the hearing, it was revealed that the seal was only on the cigarette manufacturing machines and not on the entire factory premises as claimed by the petitioner. The respondents had no objection to the petitioner using the factory since the seal was limited to the specified machines. The petitioner's counsel argued that as per the relief clause, the respondents were obligated to release the seized books and records essential for factory operations. In response, the respondents' counsel cited section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, stating that if the petitioner applied for copies of necessary records and books, they would be provided as per the law. The petitioner's counsel did not object to this provision. The court noted that with both parties in agreement, there was no further issue to be adjudicated in the petition. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition by confirming that there was no seal on the factory premises, allowing the petitioner to access and utilize the factory. The court directed the petitioner to obtain documents and records by following the procedure under section 67(5) of the Act of 2017. Regarding the seal on the cigarette manufacturing machine, the petitioner was advised to address that specific concern through legal means. The court clarified that the disposal of the petition did not imply any opinion on the case's merits, concluding the judgment without further elaboration on the substantive issues presented. This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the need for parties to resolve disputes through appropriate legal channels. It underscores the significance of specific legal provisions, such as section 67(5) of the Act of 2017, in governing the release of necessary documents and records. The court's decision to dispose of the petition based on the parties' agreement and the absence of a seal on the factory premises reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving the immediate concerns raised in the petition.
|
