2022 (5) TMI 126 - HC - GST

Seeking release of seized 21 electronic gadgets - seizure during the course of the search carried out under Section 67 of the G.S.T. Act - HELD THAT - Prima facie, for any Forensic Science Laboratory it should not take much time to retrieve the data from all the three gadgets referred to above. It would not be appropriate for the authority to retain the seized items, even considering the statutory provision of sub-section 7 of section 67 of the Act. However, we would not like to enter into any debate as regards the interpretation of sub-section 7 of Section 67. If the authority on its own looks into the matter and makes an appropriate statement, it may facilitate this Court in disposing of these writ applications accordingly. Let the matters be notified on top of the board.

Summary

Issues:
Release of seized electronic gadgets under Section 67 of the G.S.T. Act; Retention of specific gadgets for data retrieval; Return of seized cash amounting to Rs.12,50,000.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Gujarat High Court, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala, and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nisha M. Thakore, addressed the controversy surrounding the release of 21 electronic gadgets seized from the writ applicants during a search conducted under Section 67 of the G.S.T. Act. The court noted that out of the 21 items, the department had agreed to release 18 gadgets but intended to retain three specific items - an I-Phone-12 Pro Max 256 GB, a Laptop Lenovo, and a Digital Video Recorder (D.V.R) due to pending data retrieval needs. The court, prima facie, opined that the 18 items should be released promptly, while considering granting a three-month extension for data retrieval from the three retained gadgets.

The court directed Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP, to consult the relevant authority and provide an update on the matter by a specified date. The court emphasized that the Forensic Science Laboratory should not require an extensive period to retrieve data from the retained gadgets, expressing concerns over unnecessary retention of seized items. The judgment highlighted that while acknowledging the statutory provision of sub-section 7 of Section 67 of the Act, the court refrained from delving into a debate on its interpretation, urging the authority to independently assess the situation and provide a suitable statement to expedite the resolution of the writ applications.

Furthermore, during the proceedings, Mr. Chetan Pandya, the learned Advocate, brought to light the seizure of cash amounting to Rs.12,50,000 during the search. The court acknowledged this revelation and directed that the seized cash should also be returned to the writ applicants. The judgment encapsulates a balanced approach by the court in addressing the issues of gadget release, data retrieval, and cash return, ensuring a fair and timely resolution in compliance with legal provisions and principles of justice.