M/s Deepak Construction Co. v. Union of India & Ors.

What happened

A search at the firm’s Tinsukia business premises began on 15 September 2026 and was said to be continuing when the writ was heard. The firm alleged pressure to discharge a disputed liability relating to benefits availed while registration was suspended and interference with normal business.

Questions before the court

• What interim protection against coercive payment and business disruption was appropriate during the ongoing search.

What each side argued

The firm relied on the investigation instruction against coercive collection. State counsel denied pressure, described serious suspected contraventions and assured that any demand and recovery would follow the statutory procedure.

Why the court ruled this way

The court did not resolve the competing factual allegations or stop the lawful investigation. It protected normal business activity and required adherence to the applicable instruction. The distinction was between investigation of possible liability and coercion to pay it during the search.

Controlling point

An ongoing GST search does not justify coercive extraction of disputed liability; investigation authorities must follow the governing safeguards and statutory demand process.

Order and next steps

Notice was returnable on 12 October 2026. Until then, the authorities must not take coercive steps to make the firm discharge liability during the inspection/search and must follow the instruction. Normal business activity must be permitted.

Practical implications

Keep a contemporaneous search chronology, authorisation, payment communications and records of business interruption. The protection does not excuse withholding records or obstructing a lawful search. Any voluntary payment and any alleged coercion should be documented distinctly.

Limits of this ruling

• This is interim protection, not a finding that officers actually coerced payment.
• No tax liability or validity of the entire search was finally decided.