2019 (7) TMI 1854 - HC - GST

Seizure Order passed without obtaining any authorization for the same from the Second Respondent - HELD 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 Dekars Fires Security Systems Pvt. Ltd. Hyd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad and others 2011 (7) TMI 1382 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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 procedural safeguards prescribed in that behalf. Following the said decision, it is held that the impugned seizure order, dated 07.02.2018, passed by first respondent is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions under Section 67 (2) of the SGST Act and that all the consequential orders are unsustainable under facts and law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Authorization for seizure under Section 67(2) of SGST Act
2. Legality of seizure order dated 07.02.2018
3. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 67(2) of SGST Act

Authorization for Seizure under Section 67(2) of SGST Act:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST and SGST Acts, challenged the seizure order dated 07.02.2018, contending that the first respondent conducted the seizure without proper authorization under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act. The petitioner argued that subsequent notices did not reference any such authorization. The petitioner's counsel highlighted previous cases where similar authorizations were found to lack credibility. The Government Pleader argued for remand based on a previous decision, emphasizing the need for the jurisdictional officer to reassess the situation.

Legality of Seizure Order dated 07.02.2018:
The High Court analyzed the facts and submissions, referencing a prior decision to conclude that the second authorization under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act lacked credibility. The Court held that the seizure order and subsequent proceedings were in violation of the procedural safeguards outlined in the Act. Relying on the previous decision, the Court declared the seizure order unconstitutional and violative of Section 67(2) of the SGST Act, deeming all consequential orders unsustainable under the law. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, granting liberty to the respondents for fresh action in adherence to legal procedures.

Compliance with Procedural Safeguards under Section 67(2) of SGST Act:
The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance under Section 67(2) of the SGST Act. It reiterated that the seizure order dated 07.02.2018 failed to meet the prescribed procedural safeguards, leading to its declaration as unconstitutional and violative of the Act. The Court's decision highlighted the necessity for authorities to follow due process and established legal procedures, ensuring that actions are taken lawfully and in accordance with statutory requirements.