9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities to pass an order prohibiting the tax payer from parting with the goods in cases where goods are liable for seizure, but is not practicable to do so. The order of prohibition is not a stop gap arrangement for the department to take an informed decision whether to seize the goods or not seize the goods. Although Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act refers to seizure of goods under Sub-section (2), it is clear from the scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the CGST Act that an order of prohibition, is for all intents and purposes, an order of seizure. However, instead of physically seizing the goods, the taxpayer is directed not to part with or deal with the said goods if it is not practicable to seize the same. The contention that while the concerned authorities are required to return the seized goods if a notice is not issued within a period of six months; the order of prohibition can continue indefinitely, clearly militates against the scheme of Section 67 of the CGST Act. No further orders are required to be passed in this regard as the order of confiscation has already been passed by the concerned authority, and the same is the subject matter of anoth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned petition. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be confined to the petitioner s challenge to the impugned show cause notice. The petitioner had also moved an application seeking amendment in the writ petition. Although the petitioner has sought several prayers in its petition but it confined the petition to the limited extent of challenging the impugned show cause notice. 3. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present petition was heard confined to the said issue. 4. Mr. Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned show cause notice was issued beyond the period of six months, as contemplated under Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act and therefore, the goods seized were liable to be returned. He also contended that the impugned show cause notice was, thus, barred by limitation. 5. He relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Devesh Radheshyamji Kabra v. State of Gujarat 2021:GUJHC:4370-DB and on the strength of the said decision, submitted that the goods seized are liable to be returned. 6. He also referred to the decision of the Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the seized goods were not issued within the period of six months from the date of the order dated 26.08.2022 prohibiting the petitioner from dealing with the said goods. 9. Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the CGST reads as under: Section 67. Power of inspection, search and seizure. xxx xxx xxx (2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things: PROVIDED that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer: PROVIDED FURTHER that the documents or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Gian Chand Ors. v. State of Punjab 1962 Supplementary 1 SCR 364 and held that the word secreted as used in Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, is required to be understood in light of the aforesaid decision. The Court further rejected the contention that pending the confiscation proceedings, the goods could not be seized or be subjected to an order of prohibition. 15. The question whether the goods are liable to be returned in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the CGST Act if no notice is issued in respect of the said goods within a period of six months in terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, was not a subject matter of controversy in Golden Cotton Industries v. Union of India 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. (587) (Guj.) . Thus, the reliance placed on the said decision is clearly inapposite. 16. It is relevant to note that in Devesh Radheshyamji Kabra v. State of Gujarat 2021:GUJHC:4370-DB , Gujarat High Court referred to Sub-section (2) and (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act and held as under: 6. The plain reading of Sub-section-(7) of Section-67 referred to above would indicate that from the date of seizure under Sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded Sub-section 1 2 of 110 of the Customs Act came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Mohd. Salman Khan v. Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6739. In the said case, the Customs Department had detained certain Nepalese currency from the petitioner while he was on the way to Dubai. No notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was issued within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner was dispossessed of the Nepalese currency (equivalent to ₹3.1 lakhs of Indian currency). It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that there is a distinction between detention of currency and its seizure and the goods (Nepalese currency) were detained but were not seized; therefore, the provision to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act was not applicable. In this context, the Court had held as under: 8. Whatever may be the justification that the Customs Department wishes to put forth for seizing the goods, there is a definite time-limit within which the Department has to determine if the seized goods are to be confiscated and if so, for giving a SCN under Section 124(a) of the Act. There appears to be no provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
