2024 (8) TMI 1383 - HC - GST

Release of provisionally attached bank accounts of petitioner - HELD THAT - The Commissioner passed a speaking order dated 16.04.2024 setting out in detail, its reasons for not acceding to the petitioners prayer and justifying the impugned orders for freezing the bank accounts in question - the petitioners does not, at this stage, press any relief regarding the freezing of the bank accounts. Return of the laptops, CPUs, Mobile Phones and other documents, which were seized during the search and seizure operations - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 67 (3) of CGST Act, all documents, books, or things seized under Section 67 (2) of CGST Act, are required to be returned to the person from whom the same are seized within the period not exceeding 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice - the Commissioner may retain the documents, records, laptops, CPUs, and Mobile Phones which were seized but only till the time, the same are required and in any event not later than 30 days after issuance of notice, as required under Section 67 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - the Commissioner is requested to examine this aspect and ensure that the data recorded on the devices is not withheld from the petitioners. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the refund of Rs. 22,00,000/- which, the petitioners claim, they were compelled to deposit during the course of the search and seizure raid? - HELD THAT - It is seen that the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents is not on record. The respondents shall ensure that the same is placed on record before the next date of hearing. List for hearing on the aforesaid question on 20.08.2024, the date already fixed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing application filed by petitioners.
2. Challenge to orders provisionally attaching bank accounts.
3. Request for return of seized assets and refund of coerced deposit.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed an application seeking early hearing of the petition, which was allowed by the court for hearing.
2. The petition challenged orders dated 20.11.2023, where the Commissioner provisionally attached bank accounts of the petitioners and their Directors. The court previously allowed limited operations of the bank accounts to maintain the company as a going concern. The Commissioner justified the freezing of the accounts in a speaking order dated 16.04.2024. The petitioners did not press for relief regarding the freezing of bank accounts at this stage.
3. The petitioners also sought the return of seized assets, including laptops, CPUs, and mobile phones. The court noted that the petitioners are entitled to copies of seized documents under the CGST Act and directed the Commissioner to allow the petitioners to obtain copies of the seized assets. The Commissioner was instructed to retain the seized items only until required, not exceeding 30 days, and to ensure that copies of the data are made available to the petitioners. There was a concern raised by the petitioners regarding the withholding of data recorded on devices, which the court requested the Commissioner to examine.
4. The third issue involved the petitioners' claim for a refund of Rs. 22,00,000, which they alleged was coerced during a search and seizure raid. The petitioners cited previous court decisions in support of their contention that the amounts deposited should be returned. The respondents contested this claim, but the counter-affidavit from the respondents was not on record. The court directed the respondents to ensure the affidavit is placed on record before the next hearing scheduled for 20.08.2024.