Business premises must be desealed subject to an undertaking not to dispose of inventoried goods without prior permission.

On 18 August 2026, the respondent inspected the petitioner’s business premises, seized accounting records and electronic devices, and sealed the premises by affixture of notice.

The petitioner contended that no mahazar had been furnished for the seized items and that an assessment order through FY 2024–25 had already been passed.

It undertook not to sell or remove goods appearing in the respondent’s stock inventory without prior permission.

The respondent opposed desealing, alleging bill trading and a risk that the stock would be removed.

The petitioner sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the sealing and secure removal of the seal.

1. Whether the petitioner’s business premises should remain sealed despite its undertaking not to sell or dispose of the inventoried goods without prior permission.

2. Whether the respondent should be directed to deseal the premises while preserving the inventoried goods.

The Court identified no statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision.

Section 67(2) of the CGST Act was referred to in the petitioner’s submission, but the Court did not determine its application or decide the legality of the seizure or sealing on that ground.

The Court’s stated basis was that, in light of the petitioner’s undertaking, keeping the premises sealed while the goods remained idle served no useful purpose and could lead to deterioration or wastage.

The Court acknowledged that the respondent’s allegations of bill trading were serious, but also found that sealing prevented the petitioner from carrying on business.

The petitioner’s undertaking addressed the respondent’s stated concern that stock might be removed: the inventoried goods could not be sold or disposed of without prior permission.

In those circumstances, continued sealing was unnecessary and risked deterioration or wastage of the goods; the Court therefore ordered desealing subject to that restriction.

The petitioner was prohibited from selling or disposing of any goods listed in the stock inventory prepared on 18 August 2026 without prior permission from the authorities.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.