TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the search and seizure of the seized areca nuts by the BIEO team could be treated as within lawful jurisdiction, and whether interim release of the goods in favour of the petitioners was warranted pending determination of liability.
Analysis: The petition involved a challenge to the seizure of areca nuts stored in the petitioners' godown and the authority under which the raid had been conducted. The record showed that the dispute was linked to the GST regime and the power of search and seizure under the GST law, while the State authorities indicated that the raid had been undertaken under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that the goods were not stolen or suspiciously held and that, at best, the matter related to tax liability, which lay within the domain of the tax authorities. On the materials then available, the Court formed a prima facie view that the BIEO team may have acted beyond its jurisdiction. To avoid disruption of the petitioners' business, and subject to protective financial conditions, interim release of the seized goods was directed.
Conclusion: The seizure was not finally adjudicated on merits, but interim custody of the goods was ordered to be restored to the petitioners on furnishing a bank guarantee and on verification by the tax authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
