2020 (6) TMI 177 - HC - GST

Direction to the respondents to return all the documents and record seized - Allegation of availing ineligible drawback and IGST by way of accumulating ITC by procuring fake purchase bills - Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Section 105 is widely worded and search can be conducted if the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Customs has reasons to believe that there are any document or thing which in his opinion will be useful or relevant to any proceedings under this Act or secreted at any place. The section does not restrict the search only with regard to importer or exporter, the other premises can also be searched. The petitioner was a supplier/seller to the exporters at Ludhiana, there was an investigation that ineligible drawback etc. had been claimed by procuring only the bills without there being transfer of goods, this establishes the relevance of search with proceedings under the Act. The petitioner had written letter stating that there is a mistake in panchnama in recording the contents and same may be rectified. The said aspect cannot be gone into at this stage and would not be a reason to quash the panchnama or to declare the search illegal. The issue of evidentiary value of the contents can be raised by the petitioner at the appropriate stage. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of panchnama and memo dated 9.7.2019
2. Return of seized documents and records
3. Jurisdiction of DRI officials to conduct search
4. Validity of panchnama contents

Quashing of Panchnama and Memo:
The petitioner sought to quash the panchnama and memo dated 9.7.2019, requesting the return of seized documents and records. The search was conducted by officers of the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in connection with investigations on ineligible drawback and IGST availing by procuring fake purchase bills. The petitioner, a supplier to the dealers under investigation, argued that the panchnama should be quashed as DRI officials had no jurisdiction to conduct the search. However, it was confirmed that copies of seized documents had been provided to the petitioner, rendering the grievance moot.

Jurisdiction of DRI Officials:
The petitioner contended that the DRI officials lacked jurisdiction to search their premises as they were not an exporter, and any investigation should have been conducted by Goods & Service Tax Department officials. The respondents argued that the search was relevant to the investigation against the Ludhiana dealer, of which the petitioner was a supplier. Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers customs officers to search premises if they have reason to believe that goods liable for confiscation or relevant documents are secreted. The wide scope of this section allows searches beyond importers or exporters, supporting the legality of the search on the petitioner's premises.

Validity of Panchnama Contents:
The petitioner raised concerns about the contents of the panchnama, specifically a statement attributed to them regarding the supply of goods to the dealers under investigation. The petitioner claimed that this statement was inaccurately recorded. However, the court held that the disputed contents were a question of fact and could be addressed for evidentiary value at a later stage. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that discrepancies in the panchnama did not warrant quashing it or declaring the search illegal.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality of the search conducted by DRI officials on the petitioner's premises. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of customs officers to search premises based on reasonable belief of relevant documents or goods, even if the premises were not directly involved in import-export activities. The court also noted that discrepancies in the panchnama contents could be addressed at a later stage for evidentiary evaluation, but did not provide grounds for quashing the search or memo.