Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/14519/2026 of M/S NOVELTY LEATHER STORE Vs COMMISSIONER DGST DELHI & ORS. on 30 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010472682026 + W.P.(C) 14519/2026 & CM APPL. 67995/2026 M/S NOVELTY LEATHER STORE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr. Shubhankar Jain, Mr. Pranav Raj Singh, Mr. Sambhav Jain & Ms. Gouri Agarwal, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER DGST
$~23
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010472682026
+
W.P.(C) 14519/2026 & CM APPL. 67995/2026
M/S NOVELTY LEATHER STORE
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr. Shubhankar
Jain, Mr. Pranav Raj Singh, Mr. Sambhav Jain &
Ms. Gouri Agarwal, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER DGST DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD
along with Mr. Aakrit Bhargava, Mr. Sumit Kumar
and Ms. Roshni Agarwal, Advs.
Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka Jindal,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
30.09.2026
1. Through the present petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the Sealing Memo dated 25.09.2026 whereby the business premises of the Petitioner was sealed.
2. In the pre-lunch session, arguments of learned counsel representing the Respondents were heard.
3. Attention of the learned counsel representing the Respondents was drawn to Section 67(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which empowers the authorized officer to seal the business premises only in the eventuality that access to such premises, electronic devices, boxes or receptacles is denied.
4. Learned counsel representing the Respondents submitted that despite opportunity and undertaking, the Petitioner failed to supply books of accounts and supporting documents.
5. In the post-lunch session, learned counsel representing the Respondents after taking instructions submitted that seals on the business premises of the Petitioner will be removed by 12 PM tomorrow.
6. The Petitioner has brought certain books of accounts, which shall be handed over to Mr. Krishan Kant, Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion). After examining the documents, it shall be open to the Department to requisition remaining documents, if any, from the Petitioner. It shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner to supply those documents within two weeks of their requisition by the Department, failing which the Department shall be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner alleges that during the course of search, he was forced to draw cheques amounting to Rs. 1 crore. Learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that two cheques of Rs. 50 lakh each were handed over, which shall not be encashed.
8. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner states that the requisite assistance for stock-taking shall be rendered at the time of removing the seals from the premises.
9. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Department will be free to proceed in accordance with law.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition along with the pending application, stands disposed of.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
BHARAT PARASHAR, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/RW/MN