2019 (7) TMI 1854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned order of seizure, dated 07.02.2018, passed by the first respondent against the petitioner without obtaining any authorization for the same from the Second Respondent, and all further proceedings taken in pursuant to the same, as without jurisdiction, without authority, without power, arbitrary, capricious, baseless, contrary to law, violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders...." 2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and of the learned Government Pl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondence, a request was only made to the petitioner to produce all the books of accounts and records, without mentioning the details thereof. Aggrieved thereof and impugning the order of seizure, dated 07.02.2018, passed by the first respondent in Form GST INS-1, and all further proceedings taken pursuant thereto, as being without jurisdiction, the present writ petition is filed.' 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no order from the second respondent authorizing the first respondent under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act for seizure and confiscation and yet, the seizure order came to be passed after illegal seizure and confiscation of the goods and therefore, it is a clear violation of law and hen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter is required to be remanded to the jurisdictional authority. 6. Having regard to the facts & submissions and for the reasons alike as were mentioned in the afore-stated order, we are of the considered view that the respondents cannot now be heard to say that a second authorization was also given under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act as it was already held in the aforesaid decision that the said contention of the Revenue does not inspire confidence and that the whole proceedings of seizure, dated 07.02.2018, and all further proceedings, including the show cause notice for confiscation of the goods are in violation of the provisions under Section 67(2) of the Act and that the order of seizure, dated 07.02.2018, does not satisfy the proc....