Search & Seizure — Section 67 of the CGST Act — The appellants appealed against the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellants allege that illegal proceedings were taken against them, and their residences and offices were raided, both of them kept under illegal custody and an amount of Rupees One Crore extorted from them. The appellants prayed for (i) setting aside notice, requiring them to provide information issued by the respondent (ii) invalidation of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 (iii) refund of Rupees One Crore (iv) a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by the Local Cable Operator (v) compensation for the damage to the reputation of the petitioners and the mental agony suffered. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petition is premature and there was no evidence produced by the petitioners to substantiate the contention of harassment perpetrated on them, accordingly, the Judge refused exercise of discretion under Article 226 and the reliefs sought for were declined. The respondent submitted that payment made was voluntary and the cheque was not encashed. The appellants produced documents issued in the course of the investigation attaching their Bank accounts.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the proceedings initiated under Section 67 are not improper, illegal.—Suresh Kumar P.P., Mr. Aboobacker Sidhique Vs. The Deputy Director, The Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Renn Abraham And Others [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 027 (Kerala)