Page 82 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

528 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
over, it was always open for the concerned officers to summon any of the family
members of the petitioner under Section 70 of the GST Acts if they wanted to
record their statements or confront them with any material found during the
course of search. In the opinion of this court, the last part of the report flies in the
face of the panchnama of the search proceedings, wherein there is not even a
whisper regarding any collection, interpretation, co-relation and confrontation of
the materials found during the search. All that is stated is that the statements of
the family members regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner were recorded
at different times of the day in question - answer form and time and again they
were asked as to whether they had any information about the petitioner. The
statement in the report to the effect that 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,
also does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as there is nothing recorded in the
panchnama to show that the concerned officers were examining the pre-recorded
call recordings. Also statements of the family members appear to have been rec-
orded either in the morning or afternoon or at night and at times only once in a
day. At all other times, the only query put to them is as to whether they had any
news about the petitioner. One fails to understand as to what the officers con-
cerned were doing at the residential premises of the petitioner for a whole week,
along with two panchas and an SRP Constable when the search was concluded
on day one. Such action on the part of the respondents is abhorrent and cannot
be countenanced. No provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for investiga-
tion, search or seizure, empowers a police officer to remain a moment longer at
any premises once the search is over. At this juncture, it may be apposite to note
that the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Seth Brothers (supra) has held that
since by the exercise of powers of search and seizure a serious invasion is made
upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the taxpayer, the power must be exer-
cised strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes for which the
law authorises it to be exercised. In the facts of the present case, the power under
sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the GST Acts has not only not been exercised
strictly in accordance with law, but has also not been exercised for the purposes
for which the law authorises it to be exercised, namely that though the power
was to be exercised for carrying out search and seizure of goods liable to confis-
cation, documents, books or things at the place in respect of which the authorisa-
tion of search was given, the search was converted to a search for the dealer and
into an investigation to find out other places where documents, books or things
could have been secreted, which was beyond the scope of the powers vested in
the authorised officer.
26. Article 21 of the Constitution of India reads thus :
“21. Protection of life and personal liberty. - No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law.”
In the facts of the present case, the family members of the petitioner have been
deprived of their personal liberty not only by being confined in the residential
premises and being permitted to leave only with the consent of the authorised
officer, and that too, at times with an escort; but also by an intrusion on their
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  82