Page 89 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] ANOPSINH KIRITSINH SARVAIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT 175
who have stored their goods in the godown, have contravened the provisions of
the Act and the Rules and, therefore, they are liable to be proceeded in accord-
ance with law. Mr. Dave would submit that the authorities have the power under
Section 67(4) of the Act to affix the seal on the premises. According to Mr. Dave,
as on date, there is nothing with the Department, on the basis of which, it can
come to the conclusion that the writ applicant is the owner of the godown in
question and the dealers are the tenants of the writ applicant. In such circum-
stances, referred to above, Mr. Dave prays that there being no merit in this writ
application, the same be rejected.
5. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our
consideration is whether the writ applicant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for
in this writ application.
6. We may straightway, once again, look into the sealing memos. The
plain reading of the contents of the sealing memos would indicate that after the
seal was affixed, the authorities had to stop further action for the reasons record-
ed in the memos. The reasons recorded in the memos are as under;
“1. To avail Wrong ITC
2. Collected tax wrongly & not deposited to Govt. Treasury
3. Try to neglect searching team
4. Non-Co-operation in search process.”
7. In one of the memos, it has been stated that the place of business is
found to be closed and no authorized person was found to be present. We are not
able to understand how could such grounds be the reason for not taking further
action in the matter. What has been stated above could be in the form of accusa-
tion against the dealers, for which, it is always open for the Department to pro-
ceed in accordance with law. It is not the case of the respondents that the writ
applicant is also involved along with the dealers in one way or the other. Section
67 of the Act, 2017 is with regard to power of inspection, search and seizure. Sec-
tion 67(2), relevant for our purpose, reads thus;
“(2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of joint Commissioner, either
pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has
reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or
books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any
proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in
writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself
search and seize such goods, documents or books or things :
Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper
officer, or any officer authorized by him, may serve on the owner or the
custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or oth-
erwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such of-
ficer :
Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized shall be
retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their exam-
ination and for any inquiry or proceedings under this Act.”
8. Section 67(4), also relevant for our purpose, reads thus;
“(4) The officer authorised under sub-section (2) shall have the power to
seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah,
electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers
or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to
such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied.”
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  89