2023 (11) TMI 208 - HC - GST

Authorization for seizure of Gold - the petitioner submits that in the absence of such satisfaction or authorisation, the seizure becomes illegal, null and void - HELD THAT - From the perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of SGST/CGST Act 2017, it is evident that when search and seizure operations are authorised, at that time, it would not be known which are the items or documents or books which might be recovered or which would have been kept at a secreted place - What is relevant is that while granting authorisation for search and seizure operations, the authority granting such permission, i.e., Joint Commissioner or Officer above the rank of Joint Commissioner, should have reasons to believe that the goods, documents or things hold relevance and are useful in any legal proceedings under the SGST/CGST Act 2017 and the same are secreted at a particular place. The contention of the petitioner that there was no authorisation for the seizure of 1647.970 grams of gold, the property of the petitioner, does not merit consideration as there was authorisation for the search of the premises of M/s Sobhana Jewellery and these gold items, which the petitioner had later on claimed ownership, was found in a bag in the premises of M/s Sobhana Jewellery. There cannot be authorisation in respect of each and every person and each and every article, goods, books, and documents which may be discovered during the search operation. The authorisation has to be done in respect of the business premises of an assessee, and if things, items, books or documents are found that the authorised officer has reasons to believe that they would be relevant for the purpose of proceeding under the SGST/CGST Act 2017, they are liable to be seized - there are no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no authorisation under Section 67(2) of the SGST/CGST Act 2017 for the seizure of the gold ornaments weighing 1647.970 grams. There are no substance in this writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of the seizure and confiscation orders passed by the respondents under the SGST/CGST Act 2017.

Seizure and Confiscation Order:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure order dated 26.05.2023 and the confiscation order dated 23.09.2023 passed by the respondents. The Intelligence Officer conducted a search at the business premises of M/s Sobhana Jewellery and found discrepancies in the stock of gold ornaments. A delivery challan issued by the petitioner for transporting gold ornaments was also examined. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner demanding a penalty in lieu of confiscation of goods.

Legal Provisions and Authorisation for Seizure:
The petitioner contended that there was no proper authorization granted by the Joint Commissioner for the seizure of the gold ornaments. The petitioner argued that the seizure was null and void as it lacked authorization under Section 67 of the SGST/CGST Act 2017. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the requirements under Section 67(2) for seizing goods, documents, or books, stating that without proper authorization, the seizure is illegal and the subsequent proceedings should be quashed.

Court Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined Section 67(2) of the SGST/CGST Act 2017, which allows for search and seizure operations with prior authorization. The Court noted that the authorization for search and seizure operations need not specify the exact items to be seized but should be based on the belief that relevant goods or documents are secreted at a particular place. In this case, it was found that the search operation was authorized by the Joint Commissioner, and the petitioner's gold items were discovered at the premises of M/s Sobhana Jewellery. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that there was no authorization for the seizure of gold ornaments, as the authorization was for the search of the premises where the items were found.

Conclusion:
The Court found no merit in the writ petition and upheld the legality of the seizure and confiscation orders. The petitioner was advised to seek recourse under the provisions of the SGST/CGST Act and Rules 2017 if aggrieved by the impugned order.