TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court invalidates SGST seizure order, emphasizing procedural safeguards</h1> <h3>M/s. K.V. Ramalingayya Chetty Jewellers Versus The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), The Joint Commissioner (State Tax), The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), The State of Andhra Pradesh</h3> M/s. K.V. Ramalingayya Chetty Jewellers Versus The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), The Joint Commissioner (State Tax), The Assistant Commissioner ... Issues:1. Authorization for seizure under Section 67(2) of SGST Act2. Legality of seizure order dated 07.02.20183. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 67(2) of SGST ActAuthorization for Seizure under Section 67(2) of SGST Act:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST and SGST Acts, challenged the seizure order dated 07.02.2018, contending that the first respondent conducted the seizure without proper authorization under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act. The petitioner argued that subsequent notices did not reference any such authorization. The petitioner's counsel highlighted previous cases where similar authorizations were found to lack credibility. The Government Pleader argued for remand based on a previous decision, emphasizing the need for the jurisdictional officer to reassess the situation.Legality of Seizure Order dated 07.02.2018:The High Court analyzed the facts and submissions, referencing a prior decision to conclude that the second authorization under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act lacked credibility. The Court held that the seizure order and subsequent proceedings were in violation of the procedural safeguards outlined in the Act. Relying on the previous decision, the Court declared the seizure order unconstitutional and violative of Section 67(2) of the SGST Act, deeming all consequential orders unsustainable under the law. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, granting liberty to the respondents for fresh action in adherence to legal procedures.Compliance with Procedural Safeguards under Section 67(2) of SGST Act:The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act. It reiterated that the seizure order dated 07.02.2018 failed to meet the prescribed procedural safeguards, leading to its declaration as unconstitutional and violative of the Act. The Court's decision highlighted the necessity for authorities to follow due process and established legal procedures, ensuring that actions are taken lawfully and in accordance with statutory requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
