GST search and seizure u/s 67 held illegal as reasons provided to Joint Commissioner next day

GST search and seizure u/s 67 held illegal as reasons for carrying out the search was provided to the Joint Commissioner next day – High Court

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3831 (2024) (01) HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner dealer had moved the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the action of search and seizure carried out on the premises of the assessee.

The case of the petitioner was that the mandatory provision with regard to Section 67(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act) had not been complied with by the Joint Commissioner while granting the authorization for search and seizure.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the authorization for search under the Form GST INS-01 was issued. However, the reasons for carrying out the search was provided to the Joint Commissioner subsequently which he has signed on next day.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that under given circumstances, this was a clear case of putting the cart before the horse wherein the officer concerned had authorized the search and seizure without even looking into the reasons for the authorization of the same.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that as per the provisions of section 67 of UPGST Act it is only after reasons are provided to the Joint Commissioner that he can authorize in writing any search and seizure to be carried out.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that in the present case, the said procedure had not been followed, and accordingly, the entire authorization was vitiated and liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that the entire search and seizure that had been carried out was based on an illegal authorization and was accordingly quashed and set aside.

The GST Authorities were directed to release all goods and documents that they may have detained or confiscated within a period of 15 days from date.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST
• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities