Writ petition against search, seizure, and attachment dismissed for non-cooperation and availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedies.

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017, challenged the sealing of four business premises and the provisional attachment of bank accounts via DRC-22 dated 12.03.2026.

On 10.03.2026, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) conducted search and seizure operations under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.

Despite multiple summons issued on 14.03.2026 and 18.03.2026, the petitioner failed to appear before the authorities, though replies were submitted.

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus, alleging that the sealing and attachment were without jurisdiction and constituted harassment.

1. Whether the respondents' action of sealing business premises and attaching bank accounts under Section 67 and Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 was legally valid despite the non-issuance of a formal show-cause notice.

2. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable when alternative statutory remedies for the release of goods and de-sealing of premises are available under the CGST Act.

Section 67 of the CGST Act, which empowers authorized officers to conduct inspection, search, and seizure where there is "reason to believe" tax evasion or suppression of transactions.

Section 67(4) specifically grants the power to seal premises where access is denied.

Section 83 provides for the provisional attachment of property, including bank accounts, to protect government revenue.

The court also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd., which mandates that assessees must utilize the statutory mechanism under Section 67(6) and Rules 140/141 for the provisional release of seized goods.

State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd., which restricts the exercise of writ jurisdiction when efficacious alternative remedies exist.

The court found that the "reason to believe" requirement was satisfied as the search and subsequent actions were based on intelligence-based enforcement.

It noted that the petitioner consistently evaded personal appearance during summons and failed to cooperate with the investigation.

Regarding the petitioner's reliance on M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd., the court clarified that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities, but does not prohibit the DGGI from conducting search, seizure, or issuing summons prior to a formal show-cause notice.

Crucially, the court observed that the petitioner had not invoked the statutory remedies available under Section 67(6) (for provisional release of goods) or filed objections under the prescribed rules for de-sealing, choosing instead to bypass the hierarchy by filing a writ petition.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the actions of the respondents were within the scope of Sections 67 and 83 of the CGST Act. No order as to costs was made.