Can a seizure order for an investigation under the GST Act be passed against the proprietor’s family even if they are neither a proprietor nor partner nor director nor authorised signatory nor the person in day-to-day charge of the registered-dealer?

seizure order for an investigation

Case Title

Shama Fatima W/O Mohammad Alias Shabbirali Savjani VS State Of Gujarat

Court

Gujarat High Court 

Honorable Judges

Justice A.J.Desai And Justice Bhargav D. Karia

Citation

2022 (6) GSTPanacea 233 HC Gujarat

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17882 AND 17883 of 2021

Judgement Date15-June-2022
Council for Petitioner

Ms Heral Patel

Council for Respondent

Mr Trupesh Kathiriya

The High Court of Gujarat, Ranchi bench of Justices A.J. Desai and Bhargav D. Karia, held that e that as and when the details are retrieved from the aforesaid electronic gadgets which are yet to be returned by the respondent-authority, the same shall be released and handed over to the petitioner but not later than 31st July, 2022.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband is proprietor of M/s. Lucky Steel. An investigation was carried out in respect of the said proprietorship firm. Respondent no.2 in exercise of powers conferred under section 67 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (For short ’GGST Act, 2017”) vide order dated 1st August, 2021 has seized phones, Laptop, iPad, Pen Drive, DVR and cash of the petitioner. The Petitioner is neither the proprietor nor partner nor Director nor authorized signatory nor the person in day to day charge of the registered dealer.

The petitioner’s husband made an application on 18th October, 2021 requesting to release the said articles. However, the petitioner did not receive any response from respondent no.2 nor the articles were released, and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition to release the articles’s of the Petitioner.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s husband is the proprietor of M/s. Lucky Steel and the petitioner is neither a registered person nor a taxable person and the articles seized are being used either by the petitioner or her children for personal use and therefore, the seized articles are required to be returned to the petitioner.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order of seizure in connection with an investigation being carried out in respect of the said proprietorship firm by the State Tax Department and therefore, the impugned order of seizure is just and proper. Learned Assistant Government Pleader under instructions state that as and when the details are retrieved from the aforesaid electronic gadgets which are yet to be returned by the respondent-authority, the same shall be released and handed over to the petitioner petitioner but not later than 31st July, 2022.

seizure order for an investigation

COURT HELD

The Court held that the petitions would not survive and are disposed of accordingly and agreed with the Assistant Government Pleader that as and when the details are retrieved from the aforesaid electronic gadgets which are yet to be returned by the respondent-authority, the same shall be released and handed over to the petitioner but not later than 31st July, 2022.

seizure order for an investigation

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

If an order of seizure is in connection with an investigation being carried out, then a seizure order of articles may be passed against the proprietor’s family even if they are neither a proprietor nor partner nor director nor authorised signatory nor the person in day-to-day charge of the registered-dealer under the GST Act.

 

Download PDF:

SHAMA FATIMA W/O MOHAMMAD ALIAS SHABBIRALI SAVJANI

For Reference Visit:

Gujarat High  Court