Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

Evasion of GST - Jurisdiction of inspect and search - Power to issue Seizure (prohibition) order - Proper authorization –Section 67  of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es. Therefore, with regard of inspection, survey and search operations conducted by the GST department, the some of the facts narrated by the assessee (petitioner) were as follows: The Petitioner says and submits that on 04-12-2018 some of the officers from the office of Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement) visited our premises and started investigation and during such investigation impounded some documents like Purchase invoices described by them as the dealer who are involved in billing activity. The Petitioner says and submits that the said investigation continued up to 5-12-2018 for the reason that evening i.e. upto 7.30 p.m. the investigation could not be completed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ( D). The petitioner says and submits that the stock lying in the premises has no connection with the so called allegation of the department and is out of the purchases either from the traders who has discharged their liability or from farmers for which the petitioner has discharged liability under the provisions of the Reverse Charge Mechanism. In other words, the stock lying within the premises is duty paid stock and hence the order of prohibition is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Prayer that there being merit in this writ application, the same be allowed and the impugned order of prohibition be quashed. ANALYSIS :- Clause (2) of section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Act . The Supreme Court in the said decision has observed and held as under :- .... It cannot be said that the documents have not been 'secreted within the meaning of S.105 of the Customs Act unless they are hidden or concealed. In the context of the section the word means 'documents which are not kept in the normal or usual place' or it may even mean 'documents or things which are likely to be secreted'; in other words documents or things which a person is likely to keep out of the way or to put in a place where the officer of the law cannot find it. [1005 F-G]. The power to search granted under S.105 of the Customs Act is a power of general search and it is not necessary f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as been stated in the Form that he had reason to believe that certain goods were liable to confiscation and are secreted in the place mentioned in the order. The reasonable belief was entertained by the the Proper Officer. The Assistant Commissioner appears to have merely carried out the orders of the superior officer namely the Appropriate Officer not below the rank of the Joint Commissioner. This aspect needs to be looked into by the State Government. It is possible that the Proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner under the Act may himself pass an order of seizure as well as order of prohibition. In such circumstances, the scenario would be altogether different. However, in the case on hand, it appears fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates