Page 52 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

498 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
5. The State shall make endeavour to complete the investigation within
three months from today.
6. In case the investigation is not completed within three months from
this day, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Trial Court by imposing
appropriate terms and conditions.
7. If the investigation is completed, the report shall be filed before the
concerned Court. In case, the investigation is completed and the report is filed
within three months from today, it is open for the petitioner to move the Trial
Court for bail, if he so chooses. If such an application is filed, the same shall be
considered on its own merits by the Trial Court.
8. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

_______

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 498 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Harsha Devani and Sangeeta K. Vishen, JJ.
PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
R/Special Civil Application No. 18463 of 2019, decided on 24-12-2019
GST - Search and seizure - Search party consisting of three male offic-
ers, including gunman - Authorised to only search assessee’s premises - In
assessee’s absence from his residence, stayed there for eight days, confining
his family members, including three females, and keeping them under surveil-
lance, interrogated during night hours, checking their mobile phones - Pan-
chnama did not mention what officers, panchas and constable did inside resi-
dential premises, where they stayed and slept at night - Search brought to end
only after High Court issued notice - No summons issued to assessee under
Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD : Action of rev-
enue officers was abhorrent, shocking to conscience of Court and should not
be repeated - Assessee’s family were literally under house arrest - Action of
search party was illegal, invalid and not backed by statute - Even if assessee
intentionally avoided authorities, it could not be ground to convert search of
premises to search of assessee as there is no power for that - All statutory re-
quirements were thrown to winds - It was offence against revenue officers un-
der Section 348 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - It was violation of right to privacy
of assessee’s family and infringed fundamental rights of citizens under Article
21 of Constitution of India. - Moreover, as is evident from the contents of the pan-
chnama, the members of the petitioner’s family were literally under house arrest and were
not permitted to leave the premises without the permission of the authorised officer and at
times without being escorted by a member of the search party. It may be noted that there
is no provision under the GST Acts which empowers the authorised officer to confine
family members of a dealer in this manner and to interrogate them at all times of the day
and even late at night as has been done in this case. Even the elderly lady was not spared
and despite not being well was interrogated at night, that too, without any such powers
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  52