Page 85 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] ANOPSINH KIRITSINH SARVAIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT 171
reason to believe that proceedings of the confiscation are required in the matter,
to which inspection has been carried out, after recording the said reason, he may
exercise such power for seizure by authorising in writing any of the officers of
the Central Tax Department. In this view of the matter and looking to the order
of prohibition so passed in GST INS-03, the said order passed by respondent No.
1, without reference to the order of authorisation in writing, is illegal and with-
out jurisdiction. Therefore, it is hereby set aside. It is made clear that this Court
has passed this order looking to the competency of the authority and having
found that the power so exercised by respondent No. 1 is not in conformity with
the provisions of the Act, but not on the merits of the case.
9. With the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel
all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. However, the au-
thority is at liberty to take recourse as permissible under law.

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 171 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala and Bhargav D. Karia, JJ.
ANOPSINH KIRITSINH SARVAIYA

Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
R/Special Civil Application No. 2705 of 2020, decided on 6-2-2020
Search and seizure under GST - Sealing of rented premises - Continu-
ous sealing not sustainable - GST authorities leaving search proceedings mid-
way by resorting to sealing of rented Godown of dealers by mentioning on
Sealing Memos grounds such as ITC wrongly availed or tax collected but not
deposited or neglect of search team or non-cooperation or business premises
found closed without presence of authorized person, etc. and then taking no
further action for long time of more than a year - Reasons mentioned above
cannot be a ground for not taking any further action post-sealing of godown
reportedly given on rent to five different dealers by petitioner-owner against
whom there is no allegation of any sort - Department ought to have proceed
further in accordance with law instead of continuance sealing of godown - If
there were reasons to believe that goods were liable to confiscation, it should
have been done long back - Accordingly, departmental officers directed to visit
said premises, to break open seal and continue search proceedings under
proper Panchnama - In case, they have reasons to believe that goods stored in
godown or documents secreted therein are liable to confiscation, they are at
liberty to do so but sealing has to go - Section 67 of Central Goods and Ser-
vices Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 9, 10, 12(i)]
Sealing of premises during search - Reasons for sealing, sufficiency
thereof - Sealing of premises by stopping search mid-way cannot be done on
the grounds of ITC wrongly availed; tax collected but not deposited; tried to
neglect search team; non-cooperation or business premises found closed with-
out presence of authorized person - Department ought to have proceed further
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  85