TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court quashes seizure order over lack of authorization, ruling in favor of petitioner</h1> The court quashed the seizure order of the petitioner's car and mobile phones, citing lack of proper authorization under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act. It ... Release of seized car as well as mobile phones - sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Gujarat GST Act, 2017 - wrongful availment of input tax credit - it is also alleged that the petitioner indulged in such activities attracting tax/input tax credit amounting to more than ₹ 10 -15 crores - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (2) of section 157 of the GGST Act gives immunity to an officer appointed or authorised under that Act for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith under that Act or the rules made thereunder. Thus, an officer is protected provided he is authorised to do something under the GGST Act and provided such act has been done in good faith. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 4 to show whether he has been authorised by a person not below the rank of Joint Commissioner to carry out the search and that the action taken by him was in good faith failing which, he is not entitled to the immunity provided under section 157 of the GGST Act. When an officer functioning under the GGST Act, acts in a highhanded and arbitrary manner in excess of the authority vested in him the same is required to be viewed very seriously. Justice demands that such citizen be compensated for the undue harassment faced by him on account of the unauthorised action of the concerned officer. It is evident as to why the petitioner has taken such a stand. The said request of the petitioner seems to emanate from the fact that the petitioner who is covered by the Goods and Services Tax Act has to deal with the officer concerned day in and day out and is, therefore, afraid of taking any action against him out of fear of facing reprisal for his action as the entire department would be up in arms against him and he would have to face untold harassment in future. Therefore, at the request of the petitioner, the court refrains from passing any order of exemplary costs. The impugned order of seizure dated 25. 10. 2018 passed by the respondent No. 4, is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent NO. 4 is directed to forthwith release the vehicle as well as to mobile phones of the petitioner and hand them over to him - Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the seizure of the petitioner's car and mobile phones under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act.2. Authorization for the search and seizure conducted by the Assistant Commissioner.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the GGST Act and CGST Rules.4. Compensation for unauthorized and arbitrary action by the authorities.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Seizure:The petitioner challenged the seizure of his car and mobile phones under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act. The court noted that the seizure was conducted without proper authorization, as required by the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, who issued the seizure order, did not have the necessary authorization from a Joint Commissioner or higher authority, rendering the action illegal and arbitrary.2. Authorization for Search and Seizure:The court emphasized that Section 67(2) of the GGST Act requires authorization by an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner. In this case, the Assistant Commissioner acted without such authorization. The court observed that the seizure order mentioned 'Rajya Kar Bhavan, Ahmedabad' as the premises to be searched, which is the State Tax Office, making it clear that no proper search authorization was in place.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The court examined the procedural requirements under Section 67 of the GGST Act and Rule 139 of the CGST Rules. It was found that the seizure order lacked essential details such as the make, model, and condition of the vehicle, and the names and addresses of witnesses were incomplete. These deficiencies indicated non-compliance with the prescribed procedures, further invalidating the seizure.4. Compensation for Unauthorized Action:The court recognized the gross abuse of power by the Assistant Commissioner and the undue harassment faced by the petitioner. Although the court was inclined to award exemplary costs, the petitioner requested not to pass any orders affecting the respondent personally and declined compensation. The court respected this request but directed the registry to communicate the order to the Chief Secretary of the State for appropriate action against the misuse of powers by the officers.Conclusion:The court quashed the seizure order dated 25.10.2018, directing the immediate release of the petitioner's car and mobile phones. The court highlighted the importance of officers acting within their legal authority and in good faith, stressing that unauthorized and arbitrary actions would not be tolerated. The petition was allowed with costs, and the rule was made absolute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
