Facts of the Case

A V Enterprises, a partnership firm controlled by members of the Gumber family, filed a writ petition as part of a batch of connected matters led by Genesis Enterprises, challenging inspection, search and seizure operations conducted by the CGST Department in July 2025. The searches were conducted at the residential premises of the Gumber family at Noida and at various business premises in Delhi, including those connected with A V Enterprises.

The petitioner alleged that the search and seizure were conducted in an unlawful and arbitrary manner, that CCTV footage from the residential premises was seized in violation of the right to privacy, that business premises were illegally accessed and sealed, and that refund applications were withdrawn and Input Tax Credit was reversed under coercion and duress.

The GST Department asserted that intelligence inputs revealed a complex network of interconnected and fictitious firms controlled by the Gumber family, including A V Enterprises, created solely for availing and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit and claiming inadmissible GST refunds running into several crores of rupees.

Issues Involved

Whether the search and seizure conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act were without jurisdiction or violative of statutory safeguards, whether seizure of CCTV footage violated the right to privacy, whether allegations of coercion in ITC reversal and withdrawal of refund applications warranted writ interference, and whether the High Court should interdict GST investigation at a nascent stage.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the panchnamas were defective, that seizure of CCTV footage from a shared residential premises violated privacy rights of family members, that the business premises were forcibly opened and sealed without authority, and that coercive methods were adopted to force payments through DRC-03 and withdrawal of refund applications. It was argued that the GST authorities exceeded the scope of powers under Section 67 of the CGST Act and acted contrary to CBIC instructions and settled judicial precedents governing search and seizure.

Respondent’s Arguments

The GST Department submitted that “reasons to believe” were duly recorded by a competent officer prior to authorisation of search under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. It was contended that investigation revealed multiple layers of non-operational and fictitious firms with nil inward supplies, circular transactions and refund claims based on fake ITC, including transactions involving A V Enterprises. The Department stated that seized CCTV memory cards and electronic devices had not been accessed and would be examined strictly in accordance with prescribed SOPs and safeguards.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court analysed the scheme and safeguards of Section 67 of the CGST Act and reiterated that search and seizure powers, though intrusive, are statutorily sanctioned where “reasons to believe” exist. The Court found that substantial material had been placed on record indicating large-scale GST evasion through a maze of fictitious firms created and controlled by the Gumber family.

The Court held that sufficiency of the reasons recorded for search cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction and that judicial interference at the investigation stage would be wholly unwarranted. Allegations of coercion, illegal sealing and duress were held to involve disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication under Article 226. The Court also took note of the Department’s categorical assurance that seized CCTV footage had not been accessed, thereby negating any immediate violation of privacy.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that Section 67 CGST Act empowers GST authorities to conduct inspection, search and seizure to unearth tax evasion and that courts will not interdict investigations merely on allegations of procedural impropriety unless clear jurisdictional error or mala fides are demonstrated. Issues relating to alleged coercion, ITC reversal or refund withdrawal may be raised in appropriate proceedings after completion of investigation.

Final Outcome

The writ petition filed by A V Enterprises was dismissed. The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act and permitted the GST Department to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS15092025CW138212025_155439.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.