2022 (6) TMI 761 - HC - GST

Search and seizure - validity of proceeding initiated under Section 67 of the Act - HELD THAT - The crux of the matter lies in a document in the present case I.e. the Panchnama which has been produced on record by the petitioner itself. The same reveals that on 25/01/2022 a search team reached the premises of the petitioner and at the premises there were two persons namely Anil Kumar Dahiya and Arvind Patel including nephew of proprietor of the petitioner s firm Arihant Jain were available and signatures of all these persons were obtained while carrying out the Panchanama and then the stocks were checked there only. It was found that there was discrepancies in the stock which attracted the levy of tax, hence, the petitioner out of his own free will deposited the amount of tax as well as penalty of Rs.38,46,195/-. Thus, if the said Panchanama is perused, it is evident that on the date of search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty was deposited by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock and thus there was no question of any kind of seizure. Moreover, there were independent witnesses as well as the petitioner own representatives who did not raise any objection as regards search, thus, filing of the application before respondent No.5 to remeasure the stock was an afterthought. There is no infirmity as far as the order/letter impugned are concerned and accordingly the present petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of proceeding under Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017
2. Quashing of authorization letter and impugned order
3. Direction for stock verification
4. Compliance with procedural requirements during search
5. Sufficiency of reasons for search authorization
6. Presence of independent witnesses during search
7. Allegations of search violation
8. Admissibility of stock discrepancies
9. Deposit of tax and penalty voluntarily
10. Filing of application for re-measuring stock

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the proceeding under Section 67 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017, alleging it to be void ab initio. The petitioner sought to quash the authorization letter and the impugned order, emphasizing that the search was not conducted in accordance with statutory provisions. The petitioner argued that the search procedure required compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the presence of independent witnesses, which was allegedly lacking in this case.

2. The petitioner contended that the authorization for the search lacked sufficient reasons to believe that it was necessary, as mandated by the law. The absence of recorded reasons by the Commissioner State Tax was highlighted, questioning the validity of the search authorization. The petitioner aimed to challenge both the authorization letter and the subsequent order denying re-measurement of stock.

3. The respondents defended the search procedure, asserting that it was conducted lawfully with the presence of independent witnesses, including a relative of the petitioner. They argued that no material was seized during the search, and the petitioner voluntarily admitted liability for tax and penalty. The respondents opposed the petitioner's claims of procedural violations during the search.

4. The court examined the Panchnama, a crucial document in the case, which revealed discrepancies in the stock during the search. The petitioner voluntarily paid the tax and penalty upon discovering the discrepancies, as evidenced by the Panchnama. The court noted that the presence of independent witnesses and lack of objections from the petitioner's representatives during the search undermined the petitioner's subsequent application for re-measuring the stock.

5. Ultimately, the court found no infirmity in the impugned order and letter, dismissing the petition for lacking merit. The court emphasized that the petitioner's actions, including the voluntary payment of tax and penalty, indicated an absence of seizure during the search. The court concluded that the application for re-measuring the stock appeared to be an afterthought, considering the circumstances of the search and subsequent events.

6. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on either party, affirming the dismissal of the petition based on the analysis of the search procedure, stock verification discrepancies, and the petitioner's voluntary compliance with tax liabilities.