Page 67 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 513
(b) admit the document in evidence notwithstanding that it
is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise ad-
missible in evidence.
It was submitted that sub-section (2) of section of the GST Acts has to be read
with Section 144(ii) thereof, and hence, a mobile phone can certainly be seized
from the custody or control of any person present at the searched premises. Ac-
cordingly, the authorised officer has the power to seize a mobile phone, which
would not violate the right of privacy of the concerned person.
9.2 It was further submitted that if during the course of search, the au-
thorised officer finds it necessary to record the statement of any person present at
the premises, it is permissible for him to issue a summons under Section 70 of the
GST Acts to such person in the searched premises and record his/her statement
accordingly. He, however, admitted that once the search is over, the search party
has to leave the premises and they cannot prolong their stay to find out a person.
It was urged that the action of the concerned officers carrying out the search was
bona fide and the prolonged stay at the searched premises was in the light of the
previous precedents. Moreover, the efforts of the concerned officers during the
course of their continuous stay to find out where goods, documents, books or
things were secreted were successful inasmuch as on the last day of the search,
they could obtain information from the mobile phone regarding where the other
documents, books or things were secreted. Therefore, such overstay has yielded
results. It was, accordingly, urged that a lenient view be taken as regards the pro-
longed stay of the search party at the premises of the petitioner.
10. Before adverting to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel
for the respondent authorities and the Learned Amicus Curiae as referred to here-
inabove, reference may be made to certain facts, as averred in the affidavit dated
24-10-2019 made by Shri Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan, the father of the petitioner,
who has inter alia stated that the officers who had come to their flat for search
were inquiring about the petitioner’s presence till late in the evening and thereaf-
ter, the officers were replaced by others. It is further stated that out of five family
members, three members were female, whereas all the three officers, including
the Gunman, were male, who had stayed back forcibly at their residential prem-
ise and such episode continued till 18-10-2019. It is inter alia stated that during
the course of the day, statements of the family members were recorded and their
mobile phones were checked from time to time. It is further stated that during
the course of the eight days of search, the family members were more or less con-
fined to the house and were not allowed to go anywhere without their permis-
sion. Various other submissions have been made, but it is not necessary to refer
to the same at this stage.
11. In the aforesaid backdrop, reference may be made to the relevant
statutory provisions. Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the GST Acts makes provi-
sion for search of such place where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint
Commissioner, has reason to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any
documents or books or things, which, in his opinion, shall be useful for or rele-
vant to any proceedings under the Act, are secreted. On forming such belief, the
proper officer may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax/state tax
to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or
books or things. Under sub-section (2) of Section 67, the proper officer authorises
an officer of central tax/state tax to search the premises and seize goods, docu-

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  67