Bahadur Islam vs. The Union Of INDIA And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bahadur Islam, filed an application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside an order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M). This order had rejected his petition for the zimma (custody) of seized articles, including a laptop, two mobile phones, chargers, personal documents like cheque books, and office documents. The seized items were taken in connection with CGST.93/GST/2025-26. The petitioner argued that all necessary details could be downloaded from the seized devices and that the devices and documents should be returned. He also contended that no seizure list was prepared.
Held
The Court directed the petitioner to first apply for the zimma of the seized goods before the Investigating Officer, in accordance with Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer should then consider this application in accordance with the law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that an offence report had been submitted and that there might not be justified grounds for withholding the articles, but it deferred to the statutory procedure for seeking release of seized goods. The Court found that the petitioner had not followed the prescribed procedure by first approaching the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with the direction to follow the statutory remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the zimma of the seized articles, including electronic devices and personal documents, in light of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that all required details could be downloaded from the seized devices, and therefore, the devices, along with documents and passbooks, should be handed over to him. He also raised a procedural point that no seizure list was prepared in connection with the case. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, represented by the Special Counsel for the Director General of GST Intelligence, emphasized Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, which outlines the conditions for the provisional release of seized goods. They further argued that the petitioner had not made any application for the zimma of the seized goods before the Investigating Officer.
Sections Cited
Section 67(6), Section 438, Section 442, Section 528
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. B. Chowdhury for the petitioner Bahadur Islam, who has filed this application under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Page No.# 2/3 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of the BNSS praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) in connection with CGST.93/GST/2025-26, seeking zimma of the seized articles (a) Laptop (Avita Company) along with its charger, (b) iphone – 15 plus along with its charger, (c) Samsung S21 Mobile handset along with its charger and (d) personal documents such as cheque books of HDFC, SBI etc., office documents etc.
Heard learned Special Counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal for Director General of GST Intelligence.
I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.
It is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 06.01.2026 in connection with CGST.93/GST/2025-26, has rejected the petition with prayer for zimma of the aforementioned articles. Now, the offence report has been submitted and the order dated 27.02.2026 in connection Case No. CGST/93/GST/2025-26 clearly reflects that offence report has been submitted and there appears to be no justified ground why the aforesaid articles would not be handed over to the petitioner. It is submitted that all the required details could be downloaded from the device of the petitioner, which has been seized in connection with this case and thereafter, the device may be handed over to the petitioner along with the documents and passbook etc. It is further submitted that there is no seizure list in connection with this case.
Per contra, learned Special Counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal has laid stress on Section 67 (6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which reads as – “67.(6) The goods so seized under sub-section (2) shall be released, on a Page No.# 3/3 provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, respectively, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be.”
It is submitted by learned Special Counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal that no application was made before the Investigating Officer for zimma of the seized goods by the petitioner.
Considering the submissions at the bar, the petitioner is directed to apply for zimma of the seized goods before the Investigating Officer as per Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, which may be considered by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.