Page 83 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4
P. 83
2020 ] PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT 529
right to privacy by several strangers residing in their residential premises for
eight days, that too, without any authority of law. One shudders to think of the
plight of one’s own grown up unmarried daughter if she were in the place of the
petitioner’s daughter. But unfortunately, the respondents have no regrets! All
that is stated is that longer stay at the residential premise of the taxpayer is not
desirable and requires to be avoided as far as possible.
27. It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner of State
Tax has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officers of
the department by placing reliance upon the provisions relating to power of in-
vestigation under an earlier enactment to justify the actions of the concerned of-
ficers who were exercising powers of search and seizure under Section 67(2) of
the GST Acts. One would expect the higher officer to reprimand the subordinate
officers for their unauthorised actions. But in this case, the higher ups, for rea-
sons best known to them are trying to shield the actions of the subordinate offic-
ers though they are not in a position to show the relevant provisions of law un-
der which such officers were empowered to act in this manner. All that the court
can say at this stage is that the reports submitted of the Chief Commissioner in
response to the orders dated 25-10-2019 and 20-11-2019, do not meet with the
standards expected from an authority of his stature.
28. Lastly the court may sound a word of caution to the authorities ex-
ercising powers under the GST Acts. Sub-section (2) of Section 157 of the GST
Acts says that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any
officer appointed or authorised under the Act for anything which is done or in-
tended to be done in good faith under the Act or the rules made thereunder. An
action like the present one which is not contemplated under any statutory provi-
sion and which infringes the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India may not be protected under this section. An action tak-
en may be said to be in good faith if the officer is otherwise so empowered and
he exceeds the scope of his authority. However, in a case like the present one
where the authorisation was for search and seizure of goods liable to confisca-
tion, documents, books or things and the concerned officer converted it into a
search for a person and an investigation, which is not otherwise backed by any
statutory provision, it may be difficult to accept that such action was in good
faith. Protection of such action under Section 157 of the GST Acts may unleash a
regime of terror insofar as the taxable persons are concerned.
29. It is clarified that this Court does not condone any alleged illegal
acts on the part of the petitioner and in case he has indulged in any illegalities,
the law should take its own course. However, the Court found it necessary to
pass the present order to curb any further abuse of powers in this manner by the
authorities under the GST Acts.
30. Before parting, this Court would like to record its deep appreciation
for the extremely valuable assistance provided by Mr. Tushar Hemani, the
Learned Amicus Curiae.
31. Let the matter be listed for hearing on merits on 23-1-2020.
_______
GST LAW TIMES 28th May 2020 83
