Prakashsinh Hathisinh Udavat vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the seizure of the petitioner's car and mobile phones was without any authority of law. The Court noted that Section 67(2) of the GGST Act requires authorization from an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner for search and seizure. The impugned order did not demonstrate such authorization. Furthermore, the Court observed that the premises mentioned in the seizure order was the State Tax Office itself, which raised doubts about the propriety of the search. The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner acted in excess of his powers and in gross abuse of authority. The Court quashed and set aside the seizure order dated October 25, 2018, and directed the immediate release of the vehicle and mobile phones to the petitioner. While the Court was inclined to award exemplary costs due to the gross abuse of power, it refrained from doing so at the petitioner's request, who feared reprisal. However, the Court directed the registry to communicate the order to the Chief Secretary of the State to bring to his notice the manner in which the GGST Act provisions were being implemented.

Facts

The petitioner, Prakashsinh Hathisinh Udat, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of his car and two mobile phones by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on October 25, 2018. The seizure was purportedly under Section 67(2) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act). The petitioner alleged that the seizure was made without following due procedure, including the absence of a panchnama, and without proper authorization from an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner. Furthermore, no notice for extension of the seizure period was issued, nor was any order for provisional release of the seized items granted despite representations. The petitioner contended that the seizure was unlawful and without authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's car and mobile phones by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act was valid, considering the alleged lack of authorization from an officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner and the absence of a panchnama? 2. Whether the seizure order was sustainable given that the premises mentioned for search was the State Tax Office itself, and whether the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to initiate such a seizure without proper authorization? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure was made without the requisite authorization under Section 67(2) of the GGST Act, as no officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner had authorized the search. The petitioner also contended that the seizure was conducted without a panchnama and that the premises mentioned in the seizure order (Rajya Kar Bhavan, Ahmedabad) made the action inherently suspect. The petitioner further argued that the prolonged retention of the seized items without proper procedure for extension or release was illegal. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through the Assistant Government Pleader, relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4, which pertained to assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and calculations of tax/input tax credit.