GST search powers cannot justify prolonged occupation, resident interrogation, or privacy vasion after the search ends.

Powers under the GST search provisions were held to be limited to searching the notified premises and seizing relevant material, and they did not authorise officers to remain after completion of the search, interrogate residents, or record statements without summons under section 70. The continued presence of the search party was therefore unauthorized and illegal. The Court further held that prolonged surveillance, restriction on movement, and coercive questioning of family members in the residential premises, without express statutory authority, violated Article 21 and amounted to an unlawful intrusion into personal liberty and privacy. The search could not be transformed into a continuing custodial presence or a search for the taxable person.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the powers under section 67(2), section 67(4) and section 67(10) of the GST Acts permitted the search party to remain in the residential premises after the search was over, interrogate family members and record statements without resort to summons under section 70; (ii) whether the prolonged stay, restriction on movement and surveillance of the family members amounted to an unlawful intrusion into personal liberty and privacy.

Issue (i): Whether the powers under section 67(2), section 67(4) and section 67(10) of the GST Acts permitted the search party to remain in the residential premises after the search was over, interrogate family members and record statements without resort to summons under section 70.

Analysis: The search power under section 67(2) is confined to searching the notified premises and seizing goods, documents, books or things useful or relevant to proceedings under the GST Acts. Section 67(4) permits breaking open access points and containers in appropriate cases, while section 67(10) makes the search-and-seizure provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable only so far as may be. Those provisions do not authorise the officers to convert a search into a continuing occupation of the premises or a search for the person himself. The recording of statements of residents, if required, had to be done by issuing summons under section 70. The continued presence of officers and panchas after completion of the search was therefore outside the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The continued stay of the search party after completion of the search was unauthorized and illegal, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the prolonged stay, restriction on movement and surveillance of the family members amounted to an unlawful intrusion into personal liberty and privacy.

Analysis: The residential premises were used for prolonged surveillance, the family members were required to seek permission to move out, and statements were recorded even at night, all without any express statutory authority. Such conduct infringed the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Court also held that powers of search and seizure must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and only for the purpose for which they are conferred; coercive confinement of family members to extract information was wholly impermissible.

Conclusion: The prolonged confinement and surveillance violated Article 21 and were held to be unlawful, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The search proceedings could not be transformed into a continuing custodial presence or an investigation into the whereabouts of the taxable person, and the officers were required to confine themselves to the statutory limits of search and seizure.

Ratio Decidendi: Powers of search and seizure under the GST law are strictly limited to the statutory purpose and cannot be expanded into prolonged occupation of premises, coercive interrogation of residents, or search for a person in the absence of express authority.

---