It would be too premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would not be appropriate for this Court to form an opinion with regard to the alleged conduct of the petitioners which is not supported by any material to prima facie bring the case within the realm of judicial review.
Section 67 of the CGST Act — Search & Seizure -- The petitioner, prayed for quashing order ; for quashing Search and seizure proceedings under Section 67 to the extent that Audit under Section 65 for the Financial year 2017-18 is still pending. The petitioner submitted that the respondent harassed him by taking cover under Section 67 and their personal liberty is violated by respondents by taking them into custody on 9.6.2020 and an amount of Rs.One Crore has been extorted. The petitioners submitted that they have never defaulted any of the statutory responsibilities. The respondent submitted that the issuance of notices for auditing is a parallel procedure; the other provisions of the statute cannot impose any restrictions. The court observed that the cheque has not been presented.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it is premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse.
It would be too premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would not be appropriate for this Court to form an opinion with regard to the alleged conduct of the petitioners which is not supported by any material to prima facie bring the case within the realm of judicial review.
Section 67 of the CGST Act — Search & Seizure -- The petitioner, prayed for quashing order ; for quashing Search and seizure proceedings under Section 67 to the extent that Audit under Section 65 for the Financial year 2017-18 is still pending. The petitioner submitted that the respondent harassed him by taking cover under Section 67 and their personal liberty is violated by respondents by taking them into custody on 9.6.2020 and an amount of Rs.One Crore has been extorted. The petitioners submitted that they have never defaulted any of the statutory responsibilities. The respondent submitted that the issuance of notices for auditing is a parallel procedure; the other provisions of the statute cannot impose any restrictions. The court observed that the cheque has not been presented.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it is premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse.