Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 929 - HC - GSTJurisdiction of proper officer to seize u/s 67 - Seizure of unaccounted assets - interpretation of statute - section 67 of GST Act - Seeking unconditional release of goods - two silver bars - Indian currency - Mobile Phones - legality of search and seizure of residential premises. Power of proper officer to seize the currency and other valuable assets u/s 67 of the Act, even though he has no reason to believe that the same are liable for confiscation - HELD THAT:- It is at once clear that silver bars being movable assets are not securities within the meaning of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The contention that silver bars are ‘securities’, as advanced on behalf of the Revenue, is insubstantial. Although the definition of the term ‘securities’ is an inclusive definition, the same cannot be read in disregard of Subclauses (i) to (iii) of Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 or the scope of that enactment. Plainly, as silver bars do not fall within the definition of ‘securities’ under Subsection (101) of Section 2 of the Act read with Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. Thus, silver bars are included in the term ‘goods’ as defined under Sub-section (52) of Section 2 of the Act. It would not be apposite to construe the word ‘things’ under Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Act to be mutually exclusive to the term ‘goods’. The term ‘goods’ as used in Sub-section (2) of Section 67, essentially, relates to goods, which are subject matter of supplies that are taxable under the Act. Admittedly, the goods that can be seized under Sub-section (2) of the Act are goods, which the proper officer believes are liable for confiscation. The power of search and seizure are drastic powers and are not required to be construed liberally. Further, it is found that the legislative intent of permitting seizure of books or documents or things in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 67 of the Act is crystal clear and it does not permit seizure of currency or valuable assets, simply, on the ground that the same represent unaccounted wealth. The mischief rule or the Heydon’s rule (propounded in the year 1584 in Heydon’s case: 76 ER 637) requires a statute to be interpreted in the light of its purpose. The purpose of the Act is not to proceed against unaccounted wealth. The provision of Section 67 of the Act is also not to seize assets for recovering tax. Thus, applying the principle of purposive interpretation, the power under Section 67 of the Act cannot be read to extend to enable seizure of assets on the ground that the same are not accounted for. The notice dated 10.11.2020 proposes to raise a demand for the month of April, 2019 (which is prior to the date of the search). Although, Mr. Singh contended that the said notice is not a notice issued by the Central Authorities but he does not dispute that the said notice does not rely on any of the items seized during the search operations conducted on 28.01.2020. Moreover, in the counter affidavit, it is alleged that “the petitioner had filed ineligible / bogus GST Input Tax Credit on the strength of fake / goodless invoices issued by various bogus / non-existent firms” - it cannot be accepted that the notice dated 10.11.2020 is not the “notice” as referred to under Sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings conducted on 28.01.2020 - petition allowed.
|