GST Authorities Ordered to Return 18 Electronic Devices and Cash While Retaining 3 Gadgets for Data Retrieval Under Section 67

The HC addressed the release of 21 electronic gadgets seized under Section 67 of the GST Act. The court directed immediate release of 18 gadgets while allowing a three-month extension for data retrieval from three specific devices (iPhone, Lenovo laptop, and DVR). The court expressed concern about unnecessary retention of seized items and instructed authorities to expedite the data retrieval process. Additionally, the HC ordered the return of Rs.12,50,000 in cash that had been seized during the search operation. The judgment balanced investigative needs with the rights of the writ applicants while ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Release of seized electronic gadgets under Section 67 of the G.S.T. Act; Retention of specific gadgets for data retrieval; Return of seized cash amounting to Rs.12,50,000.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Gujarat High Court, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala, and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore, addressed the controversy surrounding the release of 21 electronic gadgets seized from the writ applicants during a search conducted under Section 67 of the G.S.T. Act. The court noted that out of the 21 items, the department had agreed to release 18 gadgets but intended to retain three specific items - an I-Phone-12 Pro Max 256 GB, a Laptop Lenovo, and a Digital Video Recorder (D.V.R) due to pending data retrieval needs. The court, prima facie, opined that the 18 items should be released promptly, while considering granting a three-month extension for data retrieval from the three retained gadgets.

The court directed Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP, to consult the relevant authority and provide an update on the matter by a specified date. The court emphasized that the Forensic Science Laboratory should not require an extensive period to retrieve data from the retained gadgets, expressing concerns over unnecessary retention of seized items. The judgment highlighted that while acknowledging the statutory provision of sub-section 7 of Section 67 of the Act, the court refrained from delving into a debate on its interpretation, urging the authority to independently assess the situation and provide a suitable statement to expedite the resolution of the writ applications.

Furthermore, during the proceedings, Mr. Chetan Pandya, the learned Advocate, brought to light the seizure of cash amounting to Rs.12,50,000 during the search. The court acknowledged this revelation and directed that the seized cash should also be returned to the writ applicants. The judgment encapsulates a balanced approach by the court in addressing the issues of gadget release, data retrieval, and cash return, ensuring a fair and timely resolution in compliance with legal provisions and principles of justice.

---