Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Search and Seizure — The petitioner challenged the Appeal order dated 26.11.2019 and another appeal order dated 22.11.2019, whereby both appeals were dismissed. The business premises of the petitioner was searched. The respondent issued SCN in MOV 7 dated 10.08.2018 with the description "Vahan Sankhiya UPGODOWN02". Similarly another SCN in MOV-7 dated 14.08.2018 was issued with respect to "Vahan Sankhiya GODOWON". Two authorities issued separate SCN under Section 129(3) of the Act with respect to the same search and seizure operation. The court observed that two (not one), authority chose to act with negligence. The provision of Section 129(3) of the Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to search and seizure operation and no action was taken or contemplated under Section 67 of the Act, as that would have mandated existence of "reasons to believe", to subject that premise to search and seize goods. Moreover, they deliberately described the vehicle being checked as "UPGODOWN02" and "GODOWON". Therefore, they cannot deny that they were aware that the subject search was not directed at any vehicle but at an immovable property namely a godown premise. However, the officers are accountable for their acts.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the orders dated 26.11.2019 and 22.11.2019. Any amount that may have been deposited by the petitioner may be refunded together with interest at the rate 8%, subject to adjudication proceedings. Further, directed the Commissioner Commercial Tax UP to look into the matter, call for explanation and take appropriate action commensurate to the misconduct, committed by the erring officers and to take consequential and corrective action to avoid such occurrences, in future.