Khushbuba Mahavirbhai Parmar vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court chose not to delve into the aspect of the seized mobile phones at that stage. The petitioner's advocate assured the Court of the petitioner's full cooperation with the investigation, particularly concerning the summons issued under Section 70(1) of the CGST Act. The Court directed that the task of investigation be completed as soon as possible, with the petitioner cooperating and allowing the authorities to shift data if necessary. The Court explicitly stated it was not entering into the aspect of the mobile phones' seizure at this juncture. The petition was disposed of based on these directions and assurances.

Facts

The petitioner, Khushbuba Mahavirbhai Parmar, filed a Special Civil Application seeking to quash orders of seizure of two mobile phones dated September 14, 2021, and September 15, 2021, and a provisional attachment/debit freezing order of her bank account dated September 16, 2021, all issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner also sought to prohibit the investigation initiated by respondents No. 1 and 2 under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax (GGST) Act, 2017, and GGST Rules, 2017. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. On October 14, 2021, the Court was informed that the bank account seizure had been defreezed. The remaining issue concerned the two seized mobile phones.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's two mobile phones, Samsung Mobile Note-10, dated September 14, 2021, and September 15, 2021, by respondent No. 2 is legally sustainable under the CGST Act, 2017, and GGST Rules, 2017? 2. Whether the investigation initiated by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the petitioner under the GGST Act, 2017, and GGST Rules, 2017, should be prohibited or quashed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the seizure orders of the mobile phones and the bank account, and prohibit the ongoing investigation. The petitioner also sought a stay on the seizure orders and a direction to prevent coercive action. Revenue's arguments: The State of Gujarat, through its counsel, informed the Court that the bank account seizure had already been defreezed. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the seizure of the mobile phones or the investigation itself.