2022 (7) TMI 68 - HC - GST

Seizure order - articles belonging to the petitioner - HELD THAT - Learned Assistant Government Pleader under instructions state that as and when the details are retrieved from the aforesaid electronic gadgets which are yet to be returned by the respondent-authority, the same shall be released and handed over to the petitioner but not later than 31st July, 2022. The petitions would not survive and are disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the order of seizure passed by respondent no.2 regarding articles belonging to the petitioner, seeking relief through a writ of Mandamus, Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, and the return of seized articles.

Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Prayers and Background: The petitioner, not directly involved in the proprietorship firm under investigation, sought the quashing of the Order of Seizure dated 01/08/2021 and the return of seized articles, including phones, Laptop, iPad, Pen Drive, DVR, and cash. The petitioner's husband, the proprietor of M/s. Lucky Steel, made unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the seized articles.

2. Legal Basis of Seizure: Respondent no.2 seized the articles under section 67 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, during an investigation into the proprietorship firm. The petitioner contended that she and her children used the seized articles for personal purposes, emphasizing the lack of authority in the seizure order.

3. Arguments and Counter-arguments: The petitioner's advocate argued that the seizure lacked legal backing and should be set aside, emphasizing the personal use of the seized items. Conversely, the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent justified the seizure as part of the ongoing investigation into the proprietorship firm.

4. Court's Observations and Compliance: The Court noted compliance with its previous order, with most seized items returned, except for specific electronic gadgets like iPhones and a DVR. The Assistant Government Pleader assured the retrieval and return of the remaining items by a specified date, leading to the Court's decision to dispose of the petitions based on the assurance given.

5. Disposition of Petitions: In light of the assurance provided by the Assistant Government Pleader regarding the return of the remaining seized items, the Court found the petitions no longer necessary and discharged the notice in both cases, effectively disposing of the petitions.

By addressing the issues raised, evaluating the legal basis of the seizure, considering the arguments presented, and ensuring compliance with the Court's directives, the judgment resolved the challenges to the seizure order and secured the return of the remaining seized articles to the petitioner.