Seized Goods Challenge Fails: Ownership Proof Crucial in CGST Section 67(7) Dispute, Appellants' Claims Rejected

HC analyzed Section 67(7) of CGST/WBGST Act regarding seized goods. Appellants challenged seizure beyond six-month period, but HC rejected their claim due to failure in proving distinct ownership and differentiating seized stock. The court dismissed the appeal, finding appellants' conduct insufficient to warrant goods' return, leaving potential further challenges through statutory mechanisms.

---

---

Issues:
The case involves interpretation of Section 67(7) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 regarding the return of seized goods and the requirement to approach the proper officer for release under Section 67(6).

Interpretation of Section 67(7):
The appellants argued that as per Section 67(7), goods seized under sub-section (2) must be returned if no notice is given within six months, with a provision for extension. The seizure in this case was on 25.03.2023, and the notice was issued on 26.12.2023, beyond the six-month period without an extension, thus necessitating the return of the goods u/s 67(7).

Requirement to Approach Proper Officer for Release:
The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition citing failure to approach the proper officer for release u/s 67(6). However, the High Court found that the appellants were not entitled to relief due to their conduct, as seen from a previous case involving Biswas Timber Mart and Others where the appellants failed to differentiate their stock from others and provide valid documents.

Distinct Entity Argument:
The appellants claimed to be a distinct entity from Biswas Timber Mart and Others, but the High Court noted that they failed to prove ownership of the seized goods and differentiate their stock, leading to a denial of relief. The High Court refrained from commenting on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, stating that aggrieved parties could challenge it as per the Act.

Conclusion:
Considering the conduct of the appellants and their failure to differentiate their stock, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants were not entitled to any relief. The judgment stands dismissed without costs.

---