The Allahabad High Court has directed the GST department to de-seal the business premises of a private company, which had allegedly been sealed because of the company’s non-participation in search proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi disposed of the writ petition after the State authorities agreed to open the premises, subject to the company participating and cooperating in the proceedings through its duly authorised representatives.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the sealing of its business premises. The premises were sealed during search proceedings conducted on August 13 and 14, 2026. The petitioner contended that the sealing was without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act.

Buy Now: Service Tax E-Magazine – August 2026

The company sought an order directing the authorities to immediately de-seal the premises and restore its complete and unhindered possession. It also requested the Court to direct the officials to conduct any inspection or search strictly in accordance with the departmental circular dated April 17, 2023, including the requirement of using body cameras and preserving the video footage.

The petitioner further sought protection against coercive action pursuant to summons issued on August 14 and August 18, 2026, in connection with the search proceedings.

Appearing for the Revenue, Standing Counsel Ankur Agarwal submitted that there was no ill intention on the part of the statutory authorities. However, he acknowledged that the premises came to be sealed because of the petitioner’s alleged non-participation in the search proceedings.

The department accepted that the authorities were duty-bound to act in accordance with the law and comply with the administrative instructions contained in the circular dated April 17, 2023. The circular specifically required the video recording of search proceedings through body cameras worn by the officers.

Counsel for the petitioner, Nishant Mishra, disputed the allegation that the company had failed to cooperate. He submitted that no resistance was offered during the search and that persons responsible for managing the company’s day-to-day affairs were present at the premises.

It was argued that despite the availability of such responsible personnel, the GST authorities did not record their statements and insisted upon the personal presence of the company’s director.

The petitioner maintained that there was no legal requirement under which the director of a corporate entity could necessarily be compelled to remain personally present during the conduct of a search. The proceedings, it submitted, could be undertaken in the presence of duly authorised personnel familiar with the company’s business operations.

During the hearing, the Revenue took the position that the company’s requests concerning de-sealing and compliance with the body-camera circular could be granted, provided the petitioner participated in and cooperated with the proceedings through its authorised representatives.

Taking note of the Revenue’s stand, the High Court found no useful purpose in keeping the writ petition pending or calling for a counter-affidavit at that stage.

The Court accordingly directed the petitioner’s duly authorised personnel to appear before the concerned authority on September 3, 2026, at 11 am. Subject to that participation, the Court ordered that the company’s premises be opened and handed over to it for use.

The Bench clarified that if the authorities required the presence of any particular officer or functionary of the company for recording a statement or for any other lawful purpose, an appropriate notice or summons could be issued thereafter strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner undertook to comply with any such lawful requirement.

The High Court further observed that if any part of the search proceedings remained pending, the authorities were expected to complete it within a reasonable period and in accordance with the instructions contained in the circular dated April 17, 2023.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Income Tax Reassessment Notice Issued Beyond 3 Years With CIT’s Approval Invalid: ITAT