Procedural Compliance for Seized Goods Release under GST Act: Court Directs Adherence to Statutory Rules

The court focused on the procedural aspects of releasing seized goods in compliance with statutory provisions, emphasizing adherence to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners were directed to follow the prescribed procedure outlined in Section 67 of the Act and Rule 141 of the relevant Rules for the release of seized documents and assets. The court refrained from addressing the transfer of adjudication to an independent officer or preventing coercive action, instead instructing the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority under the Act for addressing their grievances regarding the seized goods.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of search and seizure operation proceedings
2. Transfer of adjudication to an independent officer
3. Direction to not take coercive action during ongoing proceedings
4. Release of seized documents, assets, and material

Analysis:

1. The writ petition sought various reliefs, including quashing the search and seizure operations conducted at the warehouse on specific dates. During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners limited the prayer to the release of seized documents and assets. The Additional Advocate General referred to a judgment by the Supreme Court emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory provisions regarding release of seized goods. The court directed the petitioners to follow the procedure under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the release of goods, as outlined in Section 67 of the Act and Rule 141 of the relevant Rules.

2. The issue of transferring the adjudication of the case to an independent officer was raised in the petition. However, the court did not delve into this issue specifically in the final disposition. The focus shifted to the procedural aspects of releasing the seized goods, as per the Supreme Court's directives and the provisions of the GST Act.

3. Another prayer in the petition was to prevent the respondent from taking coercive action against any officer, employee, or director of the company during the ongoing proceedings. This aspect was not addressed explicitly in the final order, which primarily directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of the Act to address their grievances regarding the seized goods.

4. The final issue pertained to the release of all documents, assets, and material seized during the search and seizure operations. The court, while refraining from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, instructed the petitioners to submit an application to the concerned authority under the Act, enclosing a copy of the order and the writ petition. The authority was directed to consider and decide the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from its receipt, after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioners.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the procedural aspects of releasing seized goods in compliance with statutory provisions, as highlighted by the Supreme Court's directives. The court directed the petitioners to follow the prescribed procedure under the GST Act for the release of seized documents and assets, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory requirements.

---