https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443374 An order under the first proviso to s.67(2) CGST Act (prohibiting dealing with goods) can be made only where the authority already has "reason to believe" the goods are liable to confiscation and seizure is not practicable; it is not a provisional measure to decide later whether to seize. The prohibition order operates, in substance, as seizure, so it cannot be treated as continuing indefinitely contrary to the s.67 scheme. However, s.67(7) only mandates return of seized goods if no notice issues within six months and does not invalidate a show cause notice issued after six months; accordingly, the challenge to the SCN on limitation was rejected and no relief was granted in view of a separate pending challenge to confiscation. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443374 An order under the first proviso to s.67(2) CGST Act (prohibiting dealing with goods) can be made only where the authority already has "reason to believe" the goods are liable to confiscation and seizure is not practicable; it is not a provisional measure to decide later whether to seize. The prohibition order operates, in substance, as seizure, so it cannot be treated as continuing indefinitely contrary to the s.67 scheme. However, s.67(7) only mandates return of seized goods if no notice issues within six months and does not invalidate a show cause notice issued after six months; accordingly, the challenge to the SCN on limitation was rejected and no relief was granted in view of a separate pending challenge to confiscation. Case-Laws GST Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443374