GST search procedure: no right to advocate presence, but independent witnesses remain a required safeguard during search and seizure.

Under the GST search and seizure framework, no enforceable legal right was shown to insist on an advocate being present during the search, and the governing provisions did not support such a demand. At the same time, the search procedure incorporates the Criminal Procedure Code so far as may be, which requires two or more independent and respectable witnesses to attend and witness the search. The procedural safeguard of independent witnesses therefore remains applicable, while no separate direction for advocate presence is warranted on these facts. The search is to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction that the search and seizure under the GST law be conducted in the presence of an advocate. (ii) Whether the respondents were required to follow the requirement of associating two independent and respectable witnesses during the search.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction that the search and seizure under the GST law be conducted in the presence of an advocate.

Analysis: Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises inspection, search and seizure. The Court noted that no statutory provision or enforceable legal right was shown conferring on the petitioner a right to have an advocate present during the search. On the contrary, the governing law and the existing judicial position did not support such a claim in search and investigation proceedings.

Conclusion: The claim for presence of an advocate during the search was rejected and is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents were required to follow the requirement of associating two independent and respectable witnesses during the search.

Analysis: By virtue of Section 67(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the search and seizure procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies so far as may be. Section 100(4) of that Code requires two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search. The Court accepted the assurance that this requirement would be complied with and found no occasion for interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The procedural safeguard of independent witnesses remained applicable, but no separate direction was issued on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because no enforceable ground was made out to restrain the search or to insist on advocate presence, and the search procedure was left to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In search and seizure proceedings under the GST law, a person has no established legal right to insist on the presence of an advocate, while the statutory requirement of independent witnesses under the incorporated search procedure must still be observed.

---