A Practical Ruling for Post-Search GST Litigation
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in M/s Murliwala Pigment v. Union of India and Others [2026-VIL-540-RAJ, decided on 20.04.2026] is an important ruling for officers handling GST investigation and enforcement proceedings. Though the judgment is concise, being a 17-page judgment spread over 26 paragraphs, it deals with issues that frequently arise during search and seizure action under the GST law. These issues include the sealing of business premises, the provisional attachment of bank accounts, non-compliance with summons, the availability of statutory remedies, and the limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judgment is particularly relevant to senior-level officers because it confirms that GST enforcement powers, when exercised within the statute's framework, can withstand judicial scrutiny. At the same time, it reminds officers that every coercive action must be supported by statutory authority, a proper record and clear justification. The decision is not merely about dismissal of one writ petition. It is a practical guide on how courts may view post-search challenges where the taxpayer does not cooperate with the investigation and directly approaches the High Court without availing the remedies provided under the CGST Act and Rules.
The case also clarifies an important distinction. Investigation, search, seizure and summons are not the same as adjudication. Formal adjudication may begin with a show cause notice, but that does not mean that the Department is powerless before issuing such notice. The GST law permits officers to investigate, search, seize, seal and summon in appropriate cases. Where the taxpayer refuses to participate in the process and simultaneously seeks writ relief, the High Court may decline interference.
The Factual Backdrop: Search, Seizure, Sealing and Attachment
The petitioner, M/s Murliwala Pigment, was a registered dealer under the GST law. On 10.03.2026, officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence conducted simultaneous search operations at five premises associated with the petitioner. The searches were carried out under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
During the search, goods lying at different premises were seized. Four business premises were sealed. Thereafter, the bank accounts of the petitioner's business entities were provisionally attached by Form DRC-22 dated 12.03.2026. The attachment was made under Section 83 of the CGST Act for protecting the interest of the Government revenue. The restriction on the bank account was in the nature of a debit freeze, meaning that debit transactions from the account were restricted.
The petitioner was summoned on 14.03.2026. A reply was submitted on 18.03.2026. The petitioner was again summoned on 18.03.2026 and submitted a detailed reply on 23.03.2026. However, the petitioner did not appear before the authorities in response to the summons. The petitioner also submitted objections against provisional attachment of the bank account, but did not participate in the investigation in the manner expected under law.
Instead of filing an application under the statutory mechanism for release of seized goods or de-sealing of premises, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought quashing of the sealing of four business premises, quashing of Form DRC-22 [ Provisional Attachment of Property under Section 83] dated 12.03.2026, de-attachment of bank accounts and protection against coercive steps.
The petitioner argued that the mere issuance of a summons could not justify the sealing of business premises or the attachment of bank accounts. It was also contended that the action of the Department had stalled business operations and that Section 67 did not authorise sealing of premises and freezing of bank accounts in the manner adopted by the officers. The Department, on the other hand, submitted that the action was taken strictly under Sections 67 and 83 of the CGST Act and that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation.
The Statutory Authority Behind the Sealing of Premises
The High Court examined Section 67 of the CGST Act, which deals with inspection, search and seizure. Section 67 is one of the most important enforcement provisions under the GST law. It empowers the proper officer to act where there are reasons to believe that a taxable person has suppressed transactions, suppressed stock, claimed excess input tax credit or otherwise contravened the provisions of the Act or Rules with an intention to evade tax.
Section 67(2) permits search and seizure where the proper officer has reasons to believe that goods liable to confiscation or documents, books or things relevant to proceedings under the Act are secreted in any place. The expression “reason to believe” is important. It does not mean a mere suspicion. It requires a rational and objective basis. The officer must have material which can lead a reasonable person to form the belief that action under Section 67 is warranted.
The High Court explained that “reason to believe” contemplates objective determination based on independent care and evaluation. It is different from a purely subjective satisfaction. This is a valuable reminder for officers. Search and seizure action should always be preceded by proper recording of reasons. The file should show that the officer applied his mind to the available material and that the statutory conditions were satisfied.
Section 67(4) was central to the controversy. It empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open the door of any premises, almirah, electronic device, box or receptacle where access is denied. The High Court treated this provision as conferring authority on the officer to seal premises in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, the sealing of business premises was not considered to be outside the scope of Section 67.
In the facts of the case, the High Court found that the premises were searched, goods were seized and the petitioner did not properly participate in the proceedings. The sealing action was therefore treated as a valid exercise of power under Section 67(4). This finding is significant because taxpayers often argue that sealing of premises is an excessive measure. The judgment clarifies that where the circumstances justify action under Section 67(4), sealing can be sustained.
Bank Attachment as a Revenue Protection Measure
The provisional attachment of bank accounts was examined under Section 83 of the CGST Act. Section 83 empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach property, including bank accounts, to protect the interests of Government revenue. This power is preventive in nature. It is not a final determination of tax liability. It is intended to ensure that potential Government dues are not defeated during the pendency of investigation or proceedings.
In Murliwala Pigment, the bank account was attached on 12.03.2026. The order indicated that the attachment was made to safeguard the interest of Government revenue. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to point out any specific flaw in the attachment process. On that basis, the Court found no reason to interfere with the provisional attachment.
For senior officers, this part of the judgment is useful but must be read carefully. The judgment does not mean that every bank attachment will automatically be upheld. Section 83 is a serious power and must be exercised with care. The order of attachment should reflect the application of the mind. It should show why attachment is necessary for protecting revenue. It should also be proportionate to the facts of the case.
The defensibility of a provisional attachment order depends on the quality of the record. If the record shows relevant material, risk to revenue and proper approval by the competent authority, the Department’s position becomes strong. If the order is mechanical or excessive, it may invite judicial interference. Murliwala Pigment supports valid attachment, not arbitrary attachment.
Why Section 67(6) Could Not Be Bypassed
One of the most important reasons for dismissal of the writ petition was the failure of the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 67(6) of the CGST Act. Section 67(6) provides that goods seized under Section 67(2) may be released on a provisional basis upon execution of a bond and furnishing of security in the prescribed manner and quantum, or upon payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty. Rules 140 and 141 of the CGST Rules provide the procedure in this regard.
The High Court relied upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Private Limited [2019-VIL-39-SC] . In that case, the Supreme Court had emphasised that where goods are seized, the assessee must take recourse to the mechanism provided in the Act and Rules for provisional release. The statutory remedy cannot be ignored merely because the assessee prefers to approach the High Court.
The High Court also referred to M/s Kanak Timber House v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [2024-VIL-236-CAL] , where the Calcutta High Court followed the principle laid down in Kay Pan Fragrance. The seized goods cannot be released only on the ground that the taxpayer has approached the writ court. The proper course is to file an application under Section 67(6) and comply with the prescribed conditions.
In Murliwala Pigment, the petitioner did not place any material to show that an application had been filed under Section 67(6) for release of goods or de-sealing of premises. This omission was fatal. The Court found that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory route and directly approached the High Court under Article 226.
This part of the judgment is administratively important. Officers should ensure that seizure documents, communications and follow-up letters clearly indicate the statutory provisions available for provisional release. If the taxpayer does not use that mechanism and files a writ petition, the Department can legitimately argue that the petition is premature and not maintainable.
Armour Security: What It Clarifies and What It Does Not
The petitioner placed reliance on Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Others [2025-VIL-63-SC]. The reliance was mainly on the Supreme Court's discussion regarding Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Section 6(2)(b) restricts the initiation of proceedings on the same subject matter where the proper officer under the State GST Act or the Union Territory GST Act has already initiated proceedings.
In Armour Security, the Supreme Court clarified that actions such as summons, search and seizure are steps taken for inquiry, evidence gathering or investigation. They do not amount to formal initiation of adjudicatory proceedings. Formal adjudicatory proceedings commence with the issuance of a show-cause notice (SCN). The petitioner in Murliwala Pigment attempted to rely on this principle to argue that coercive steps could not be taken before issuance of an SCN.
The Rajasthan High Court did not accept this argument. Armour Security did not hold that a search, seizure, or summons is invalid before issuance of an SCN. It only clarified that such steps do not amount to the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings for the purpose of Section 6(2)(b). Investigation and adjudication are different stages. The Department can investigate before issuing an SCN.The High Court also found that the petitioner had not shown that any other authority had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter. Therefore, the bar under Section 6(2)(b) was not attracted. Armour Security did not help the petitioner.
This clarification is very important for enforcement officers. Taxpayers may argue that unless a show-cause notice has been issued, the Department cannot take coercive action. Murliwala Pigment makes it clear that this argument is not correct. The GST law permits inquiry, summons, search, seizure and sealing at the investigation stage. These steps are part of the machinery for collecting evidence and protecting revenue.
Taxpayer Conduct and the Duty to Cooperate
The petitioner's conduct played a decisive role in the outcome. The High Court noted that the petitioner was not present at the time of the search, did not properly participate in the proceedings, did not appear despite a summons and did not produce documents to support its contentions. This showed a lack of cooperation with the investigation.
The Court referred to the coordinate bench decision in Ankush Jain v. Union of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17040/2022, decided on 21.12.2022], where it was held that a person is bound to comply with summons and that non-compliance can entail penal consequences. A summons under the GST law is not a casual communication. It is a statutory requirement to appear, give evidence and produce documents.
This aspect of the judgment is significant because writ jurisdiction is discretionary. A petitioner seeking relief under Article 226 must approach the Court with clean hands and with conduct that supports equitable relief. Where the taxpayer avoids summons, does not cooperate with the investigation and does not avail statutory remedies, the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
For officers, proper documentation of taxpayer conduct is crucial. The record should clearly show when summons were issued, how they were served, whether the taxpayer sought an adjournment, whether replies were filed, whether an appearance was made, and whether documents were produced. In post-search litigation, such chronology can become decisive.
Article 226 and the Limits of Premature Writ Petitions
The High Court also relied upon the principle of alternative remedy. The judgment referred to State of Maharashtra and Others v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [2022-VIL-72-SC], where the Supreme Court reiterated that where alternative and efficacious remedies are provided under the statute, writ petitions under Article 226 should not ordinarily be entertained.
The Court also referred to the broader principles set out in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Taondon reported as (2010) 8 SCC 110. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court is expected to consider whether the matter involves disputed facts, whether all material facts have been disclosed, whether an alternative remedy exists, and whether the relief claimed would be contrary to statutory policy.
In Murliwala Pigment, the petitioner had a statutory remedy available to them. For seized goods, the remedy lay under Section 67(6) read with Rules 140 and 141. For summons, the petitioner was required to appear and cooperate. For provisional attachment, objections could be considered within the statutory framework. Instead of following these routes, the petitioner approached the High Court directly.
The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition in such circumstances. This does not mean that writ jurisdiction is never available in GST matters. High Courts may still interfere where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, a mala fide action, a violation of natural justice, or a breach of fundamental statutory safeguards. However, where the Department has acted under statutory provisions and the taxpayer has failed to cooperate or avail available remedies, Article 226 may not provide an easy escape route.
Lessons for Departmental Decision-Making
Murliwala Pigment offers practical lessons for officers supervising GST search and investigation. The first lesson is that statutory powers must be exercised through a defensible record. Search authorisation, reasons to believe, seizure memo, sealing memo and provisional attachment order should all be prepared with care. The record should speak for itself.
The second lesson is that sealing of premises must be justified under Section 67(4). The reason for sealing should be clearly recorded. If access was denied, if goods or records were suspected to be concealed, or if sealing was necessary to preserve the integrity of seized goods or documents, the record should reflect these facts.
The third lesson is that provisional attachment under Section 83 should not be treated as routine. It is a protective measure and must be linked to the need to safeguard Government revenue. A reasoned and proportionate attachment order is more likely to withstand challenge.
The fourth lesson is that officers should inform taxpayers about the statutory route for provisional release of goods. This strengthens procedural fairness and reduces allegations of arbitrary action. If the taxpayer ignores the remedy, the Department can legitimately rely on that failure before the Court.
The fifth lesson is that compliance with summons must be monitored carefully. Non-cooperation should be documented. Where the taxpayer repeatedly avoids appearance and then seeks writ relief, the record of non-cooperation can become a strong factor in favour of the Department.
Conclusion: Discipline in Enforcement, Restraint in Writ Intervention
M/s Murliwala Pigment v. Union of India and Others is an important precedent for post-search GST litigation. Sealing under Section 67(4) and provisional attachment under Section 83 were sustained because the action was traceable to statutory authority, the taxpayer had not cooperated with the investigation, and the statutory remedy under Section 67(6) read with Rules 140 and 141 had not been availed.
The judgment reinforces three practical principles. Investigation is not adjudication; the absence of anSCN does not disable a lawful search, seizure, or summons. Statutory remedies must be pursued before invoking Article 226, unless exceptional grounds exist. Enforcement action is best defended when supported by clear reasons, proportionate measures and a complete record.
CAclubindia
