2023 (12) TMI 735 - HC - GST

Search and seizure carried out on the premises of the assessee - mandatory provision with regard to Section 67 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has not been complied with by the Joint Commissioner while granting the authorization for search and seizure - HELD THAT - Upon a perusal of the documents, it is found that the authorization for search under the Form GST INS -01 was issued on 31.08.2022. However, the reasons for carrying out the search was provided to the Joint Commissioner subsequently which he has signed on September 1, 2022. This is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse wherein the officer concerned has authorized the search and seizure without even looking into the reasons for the authorization of the same. Upon a careful perusal of the Section 67, it is clear that it is only after reasons are provided to the Joint Commissioner that he can authorize in writing any search and seizure to be carried out - In the present case, the said procedure had not been followed, and accordingly, the entire authorization is vitiated and liable to be quashed. Under such circumstances, the entire search and seizure that has been carried out is based on an illegal authorization and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Authorities are directed to release all goods and documents that they may have detained or confiscated within a period of 15 days from date - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of search and seizure conducted on the premises of the assessee under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically regarding compliance with Section 67(1) of the Act.

Compliance with Section 67(1) of the U.P. GST Act:
The petitioner challenged the search and seizure carried out on their premises, alleging non-compliance with Section 67(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the authorization for search was issued before the reasons for the search were provided to the Joint Commissioner, as required by the said section. The Court highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 67(1) which empowers the proper officer to authorize search and seizure only after being provided with valid reasons. Since the procedure was not followed in this case, the Court held that the entire authorization was flawed and ordered the quashing of the search and seizure. The Court directed the release of all detained goods and documents within 15 days.

Conclusion:
The High Court, after careful consideration of the provisions of Section 67(1) of the U.P. GST Act, found the search and seizure conducted to be illegal due to the lack of compliance with the mandatory requirements of the section. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the authorization, and directed the release of all confiscated items.