Page 60 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

506 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
3. The Learned Government Pleader prays for time to submit another re-
port. At her request, the matter is adjourned to 11th December 2019.”
5. Thereafter, Mr. Mihir Thakore, Senior Advocate, Learned Counsel
appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted proposed Departmental
Instructions in the nature of guidelines for conducting search under sub-section
(2) of Section 67 of the GST Acts. The said guidelines did not address the con-
cerns of this court in the context of situations like the one involved in the present
case. Moreover, the report, in compliance with the order dated 25-10-2019, was
not yet submitted. Subsequently, a report dated 19-12-2019 made by the Chief
Commissioner of State Tax, Gujarat State came to be submitted, reference to
which shall be made at an appropriate stage.
6. Considering the action of the respondents of staying in the residen-
tial premises of the petitioner, wherein five members, including three female
members, out of whom one was a young unmarried girl, for a period of eight
days, despite the fact that the search was concluded on the first day itself, the
court was deeply concerned about the matter, and more particularly that such
incidents should not be repeated. Therefore, Mr. Tushar Hemani, Senior Advo-
cate, was requested to assist the court as an amicus curiae.
7. Mr. Mihir Thakore, Learned Counsel for the respondent State au-
thorities, submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the GST Acts empowers
the proper officer to search and seize goods, documents, books or things secreted
at a place. Thus, an authorization is issued qua a place and not a person. Refer-
ring to sub-section (10) of Section 67 of the GST Acts, it was pointed out that the
same provides that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-
inafter referred to as “the Code”) relating to search and seizure apply to search
and seizure under that section. Reference was made to the provisions relating to
search and seizure as provided in the Code, to submit that the officers concerned
had resorted to the powers of search and seizure as contained therein. Insofar as
the statements of the members residing in the searched premises are concerned,
reference was made to Section 161 of the Code.
7.1 However, the Learned Counsel, despite his best efforts, could not
justify the continued stay of the search party in the searched premises after the
search was over on 11-10-2019. It was, however, submitted that such action of the
officers, though not backed by any statutory provision, was bona fide, and the
reason why this has happened is because of past precedents inasmuch as such
action was being taken earlier under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as “the GVAT Act”). It was urged that the respondents
have already framed guidelines laying down the procedure to be followed while
conducting search under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the GST Acts and that
the respondents are ready and willing to incorporate such suggestions as may be
made by this court.
8. Mr. Tushar Hemani, Learned Amicus Curiae, invited the attention of
this court to the decision of the Supreme Court in District Registrar and Collector,
Hyderabad and Another v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 SCC 496, wherein the provisions
for search and seizure under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were
construed strictly on the ground that they were a “serious intrusion into the pri-
vacy of a citizen”. The Court further held thus :

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  60