Page 78 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

524 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
formation about where else he could have secreted documents, books or things
relevant for any proceedings under the GST Acts, such continued stay was total-
ly unauthorised as it was not backed by any statutory provision. As discussed
hereinabove, the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the GST
Acts is to search for goods liable to confiscation, documents, books or things
which in the opinion of the proper officer shall be useful for or relevant to any
proceedings under that Act.
21. From the contents of the panchnama as referred to hereinabove, it is
evident that the concerned officers remained at the residential premises of the
petitioner with a view to extort confessions from the family members of the peti-
tioner regarding the presence of the petitioner and the place where the petitioner
might have secreted the documents regarding his business dealings. Section 348
of the Indian Penal Code provides that whoever wrongfully confines any person
for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in
the person confined, any confession or any information which may lead to the
detection of an offence or misconduct or for the purpose of constraining the per-
son confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to
cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim
or demand or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any prop-
erty or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip-
tion for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. In
the present case, it appears that the respondent authorities had wrongfully con-
fined the family members of the petitioner in the residential premises with a
view to extort information from them about the whereabouts of the petitioners or
the place where he might have secreted documents relevant for any proceedings
under the GST Acts. Thus, the unauthorised action of the concerned officers may
tantamount to an offence under the Indian Penal Code. In the opinion of this
court what is not permissible in law cannot be done under the guise of discharge
of statutory functions. The plea that the concerned officers were acting on the
basis of past precedent also appears to be a specious plea, inasmuch as, even un-
der the previous enactments such action was not permissible. Besides, no in-
stance has been pointed out to show that at any point of time, a search case was
converted to a search for a person and the officers concerned resided in residen-
tial premises of a dealer in the manner that has been done in this case. The action
of the respondents, therefore, cannot be countenanced.
22. Besides, the GST Acts are new enactments. Officers acting under the
relevant provisions are required to study the scope of their powers under the
statutory provisions under which they are acting and cannot act on the basis of
presumptions or past precedents under a previous enactment. If the common
man is supposed to know the law and face penalty for any infraction thereof, the
officers enforcing such provisions are required to be well versed with the statuto-
ry provisions and the scope and limits of their power and cannot take shelter
behind ignorance of law to justify their illegal actions.
23. As noticed earlier, it has come on record that throughout the search,
an SRP constable was present in the residential premises of the petitioner. As
pointed out by Learned Amicus Curiae, the assistance of the police can be taken
for the purpose of entry into the premises if there is some reason to believe that
there may be any kind of obstruction in conducting the search. In the present
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  78