Court partially allows writ petition challenging seizure & prohibition orders under GST Act, emphasizes economic revival post-pandemic.

The court partially allowed the writ petition challenging the seizure and prohibition orders under the GST Act. It directed the provisional release of seized goods upon certain conditions, emphasizing economic revival post-pandemic. The court highlighted the need for a valid reason to believe for inspection, search, and seizure actions under Section 67 of the GST Act. While refraining from quashing the seizure order, it modified the prohibition order and allowed for future adjudication proceedings without awarding costs. The case was closed with no further costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders of seizure and prohibition issued under GST Act based on search operation conducted at petitioner's business premises.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the search conducted without reasonable basis led to seizure of goods, impacting business post Covid-19 lockdown. Cited Supreme Court precedent on belief for seizure.
2. Respondents alleged tax evasion by misdeclaration, supported by intelligence inputs. Claimed petitioner failed to produce accurate stock details during search.
3. Court considered arguments from both sides, emphasizing the importance of economic revival post-pandemic for businesses like the petitioner's.
4. Examined Section 67 of GST Act regarding inspection, search, and seizure powers, highlighting the need for a valid reason to believe for such actions.
5. Noted the absence of concrete evidence supporting the initiation of proceedings based on intelligence inputs, but refrained from quashing the seizure order due to lack of stock register maintenance.
6. Directed provisional release of seized goods upon execution of a bond and payment of a sum by the petitioner, considering his rootedness in the locality and necessity to continue business operations.
7. Emphasized the importance of promoting indigenous products over Chinese imports, urging entrepreneurs to provide quality alternatives at competitive prices.
8. Partially allowed the writ petition, modifying the prohibition order while allowing for future adjudication proceedings by the authorities. No costs awarded, and the case was closed.

---