Page 81 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 527
Taking into consideration the above provisions, the departmental authori-
ties have been recording statements during search. Further, for the purpose
of ascertaining truth and real facts of the case, investigation is carried out as
was done under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In this case also
the authorised officers have followed the past precedents considering that
they have the power of investigation and acted accordingly in good faith.
So far as the issue of prolonged search in the instant case is concerned,
I say that I have narrated all the reasons for such prolonged search in my
report of inquiry dated 19-11-2019. I reiterate that the longer stay at the res-
idential premise of the taxpaper is not desirable and requires to be avoided
as far as possible. I say that the time to complete search proceedings of the
case depends on the facts and circumstances of the case which vary from
case to case. It is noteworthy that collection, interpretation, co-relation and
confrontation of the materials found during the search are required to be
done prior to seizure, in order to have complete idea about the nature of
transactions and its implication. This process itself requires considerable
time depending upon the volume and nature of incriminating data found.
In the present case, in the effort to recover incriminating documents which
were secreted by the petitioner as per the information and in order to get a
complete idea of the implication of digital data found in the form of pre-
recorded call recordings, the authorized officers decided to stay for a longer
period acting in good faith and in the interest of the Government revenue.
Looking to the longer stay during search and seizure proceedings in
the instant case and considering the provisions of law, it has been decided
that henceforth all search and seizure proceedings at residential premise
should be completed as soon as possible and in case of non-completion
within twenty-four hours, stringent watch on such proceedings will be kept
by higher authorities and a permission if higher authorities shall be ob-
tained. Departmental instructions shall be followed during the search and
seizure proceedings at the residential premises which have been issued vi-
de letter outward No. 2336 dated 9-12-2019 to the field formation. The de-
partment is open to issue such further instruction for search and seizure
proceedings at residential premises as may be required.”
25. Thus, the stand of the Chief Commissioner in the above report is
that in view of past precedent under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the
officers under the GST Acts have recorded statements of the family members of
the petitioner. On a perusal of the contents of the report it appears that according
to the Chief Commissioner under the GVAT Act, statements of persons present
at the search premises were being recorded. The Chief Commissioner has placed
reliance upon the provisions of Section 88 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act,
2003 which relates to authorisation to investigate; overlooking the fact that in the
present case the authorisation was for search and seizure and not investigation
inasmuch as recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code finds place in
Chapter XII thereof which pertains to “Information to the police and their pow-
ers to investigate” and not under the provisions of the Code relating to search
and seizure. Be that as it may. At best, giving benefit of doubt to the concerned
officers, such defence may be accepted, namely that they were under the impres-
sion that statements of family members could be recorded during the course of
search. That however, does not justify the stay at the residential premises of the
petitioner for eight days, despite the fact that the search for documents, books
and things was over on the very first day. Moreover, even after the search was
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  81