Page 56 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

502 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
Dr. Nand Lal Tahiliani v. Commissioner of Income Tax
— (1988) 170 ITR 592 (Allahabad) — Relied on ................................................................ [Paras 8.3, 23]
Income Tax Officer v. Seth Brothers — (1969) 74 ITR 836 (SC) — Relied on .......................... [Paras 8.2, 25]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Chetan K. Pandya, for the Petitioner.
Shri Mihir Thakore, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Maithili
Mehta, Asst. Government Pleader, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Harsha Devani J. (Oral)]. - In this case, pursuant to an au-
thorisation issued under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as “the GST Acts”), a search came to be conducted at the residential
premises of the petitioner herein, which went on from 11-10-2019 to 18-10-2019.
The manner in which the search has taken place, whereby a search for any goods
liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, has literally been con-
verted to a search for the taxable person and the search party has camped in the
residential premises of the petitioner for in all eight days, during which period
the family members of the petitioner were at the mercy of the authorised officer
and were confined to the searched premises and kept under surveillance and
were not permitted to leave the premises without the permission of the author-
ised officer, has shocked the conscience of this Court. This Court is, therefore, of
the view that it would be failing in its duty as a sentinel on the qui vive if it were
to turn a blind eye to the violation of the legal and fundamental rights of citizens
by authoritarianism and remain a mute spectator. It is, in these circumstances,
that the Court has thought it fit to comment upon the validity and nature of the
search proceedings.
2. On 25-10-2019 [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 342 (Guj.)] this Court passed an or-
der in the following terms :
“1. Mr. Chetan Pandya, Learned Advocate for the petitioner has tendered
an affidavit of Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan, the father of the petitioner. The
same is taken on record.
2. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted a confiden-
tial report of the proceedings carried out by the respondents at the premises
of the petitioner pursuant to the authorization issued in favour of the se-
cond respondent under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”).
3. This Court has perused the report in its entirety. A perusal of the report
reveals that the concerned officers authorised to carry out the search at the
residential premises of the petitioner had stayed there from 11-10-2019 to
18-10-2019. A perusal of the record of the proceedings of the case reveals
that on 11-10-2019 at 2:15, it has been recorded that after searching the
rooms in the premises, the records of the accounts were brought to the
main room and gathered there, which included the bank passbooks of the
family members as well as cheque books and that verification thereof is
continuing. The proceedings thereafter do not reveal any further search car-
ried out at the premises but reveal that the officers had stayed at the prem-
ises and had examined the phone calls that were received by the family
members and had recorded their phone calls. They had also recorded
statements of the family members of the petitioner on 11-10-2019. The rec-
ord further reveals that the officers who had arrived on the previous day as
well as the panchas were relieved by new set of officers and panchas and
this cycle continued till 18-10-2019. It appears that thereafter they have been
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  56