The impugned seizure order, passed by first respondent is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions under Section 67 (2) of the SGST Act and that all the consequential orders are unsustainable under facts and law and that therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Writ Petition— Section 67 of CGST Act— In the instant case, the petitioner is doing business in jewellery.
The first respondent, who is not the jurisdictional Assessing Authority of the petitioner, on the authorization given by the second respondent under Section 67(1) of the SGST Act, conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner on the same day. The inspection went on till late night hours. According to the petitioner, the first respondent, without any further authorization from the second respondent under Section 67(2) of the said Act, seized the jewellery and also all the books of accounts and records on the same day, vide the order of seizure, dated 07.02.2018, which is impugned in this writ petition.
Held that— The impugned seizure order, dated 07.02.2018, passed by first respondent is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions under Section 67 (2) of the SGST Act and that all the consequential orders are unsustainable under facts and law and that therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
The impugned seizure order, passed by first respondent is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions under Section 67 (2) of the SGST Act and that all the consequential orders are unsustainable under facts and law and that therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Writ Petition— Section 67 of CGST Act— In the instant case, the petitioner is doing business in jewellery.
The first respondent, who is not the jurisdictional Assessing Authority of the petitioner, on the authorization given by the second respondent under Section 67(1) of the SGST Act, conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner on the same day. The inspection went on till late night hours. According to the petitioner, the first respondent, without any further authorization from the second respondent under Section 67(2) of the said Act, seized the jewellery and also all the books of accounts and records on the same day, vide the order of seizure, dated 07.02.2018, which is impugned in this writ petition.
Held that— The impugned seizure order, dated 07.02.2018, passed by first respondent is unconstitutional and violative of the provisions under Section 67 (2) of the SGST Act and that all the consequential orders are unsustainable under facts and law and that therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.