Section 67 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
The most physically dramatic power in the section is also the most heavily conditioned. Three conditions, and all three are frequently arguable.
Section 67(4): the officer authorised under sub-section (2) shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied. Three conditions: the right officer, the suspicion of concealment, and — decisively — denial of access.
Condition one: the officer authorised under sub-section (2)
The sub-section confers the power on "the officer authorised under sub-section (2)".
Sub-section (2) is the search and seizure power. So the power to seal or break open belongs to an officer holding a search authorisation — not to an officer authorised only to inspect under s.67(1), and not to an officer conducting a s.71 access visit or serving a s.70 summons.
The INS-01 states what is authorised. Where it authorises inspection only, s.67(4) is unavailable, and the point should be made before anything is opened. Inspection versus search →
Condition two: suspected to be concealed
The goods, accounts, registers or documents must be suspected to be concealed in the premises or receptacle.
Note the standard here is suspicion, which is lower than the reasons to believe required to authorise the search itself. That is deliberate: the higher standard has already been applied at the authorisation stage; s.67(4) governs the mechanics once the officer is lawfully there.
But the suspicion must attach to that receptacle — this almirah, this device, this box. A general belief that records exist somewhere on the premises does not license opening everything on the premises.
Condition three: where access is denied
This is the condition that decides most disputes, and it is the one that is usually failed.
The power arises "where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied."
Denial means a refusal to give access — a refusal to unlock, to produce a key, to supply a password, to open a door.
It does not mean:
- the keyholder is not present. Absence is not refusal. The correct course is to require that the keyholder be produced, or to seal the receptacle and return.
- the password is not known to the person present. A junior employee who does not have the credentials has not denied access.
- a delay in locating a key. Time taken is not refusal.
- the person asks for their advocate or accountant to be present before opening. A request for assistance is not a denial.
- the person asks the officer to record the request in writing first. That is a lawful request.
Where access is not in fact denied, the power does not arise — and the objection must be recorded at that moment, on the panchnama, because it will be impossible to establish afterwards.
Two distinct powers in one sub-section
Seal. To close and secure premises so that nothing may be removed or altered. Sealing does not by itself take possession; it freezes the position.
Break open. To force a door, almirah, device, box or receptacle.
The objects differ too. "Seal or break open the door of any premises" — for premises, both powers. "Break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle" — for receptacles, only breaking open.
"Electronic devices" is expressly named, so laptops, servers, phones and storage media are within the sub-section. But breaking open a device is a different matter from imaging it or extracting its contents, and the sub-section addresses physical access, not forensic acquisition. Seizure of electronic records →
Sealing business premises
Sealing an entire business premises is the most severe use of the power, because it stops the business.
Three points follow:
It requires the same three conditions. Including denial of access. Premises voluntarily opened and cooperatively searched do not meet it.
It is temporary. Section 67(4) is a mechanism to overcome denial of access, not to close a business. Once access is obtained and the search concluded, the basis for the seal is spent.
Proportionality applies. Where a single cupboard is in issue, sealing an entire factory is disproportionate — and administrative-law proportionality is available in the writ jurisdiction, which is the only real remedy since no appeal lies.
What to do at the moment it is invoked
- Ask which sub-section is being invoked, and check the INS-01 authorises a search.
- Do not deny access. Denial is the trigger. Cooperate on opening, and object to the proceeding, not to the entry.
- Where you cannot open — absent keyholder, unknown password — say so in writing on the panchnama, in those words. "The keyholder is at another location and can attend by 4 pm" is a record that access was not denied.
- Record the time the request was made and the time the receptacle was opened or broken.
- Photograph the receptacle before and after, if permitted, and note any objection if it is not.
- Read the panchnama and correct any statement that access was "denied" or "refused" if that is not what happened. This single word is the whole case.
Key takeaways
- Section 67(4) belongs only to the officer authorised to search under s.67(2).
- It requires a suspicion of concealment in the specific premises or receptacle.
- It arises only where access is denied — absence, ignorance of a password, or delay is not denial.
- For premises, the power is to seal or break open; for receptacles, only to break open.
- Electronic devices are expressly covered for physical access; forensic extraction is a separate question.
- Never deny access; object on the record instead, and correct the panchnama's wording.
Read next
- Inspection Versus Search Under GST
- Rule 139 and the INS Forms: The Search and Seizure Procedure
- Seizure of Electronic Records and Digital Evidence
- Challenging "Reasons to Believe" in a GST Search
Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on the CGST Act and Rules as amended to 31 March 2026 (ICAI Bare Law, 12th edition) and the ICAI Handbook on Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest under GST (July 2025).