Sharif Ahmad Alias Sharif Falwala vs. Assistant Commissioner State Goods Ans Service Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by taking the statement of the learned State Counsel on record. The State Counsel informed the Court that a summon under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand GST Act had been issued to the petitioners, and they were expected to respond to it. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners would appear before the Authority that issued the summon within 48 hours. The Court did not make any specific findings on the legality of the search and seizure proceedings or the seizure order and letter, as the matter was resolved based on the parties' statements. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory summon is issued and the assessee undertakes to comply with it within a stipulated time, the High Court may dispose of the writ petition on that basis, without delving into the merits of the initial proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S, filed writ petitions challenging search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents. The petitioner sought to quash the search and seizure proceedings, the order of seizure issued on March 4, 2023 (Form GST INS-02), and a letter dated March 4, 2023, by which an amount of Rs. 6,98,140/- was seized. The petitioner also sought a direction to refund the seized amount with interest and to restrain coercive action based on these proceedings. The State Counsel, on instructions, informed the Court that a summon under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand GST Act had been issued to the petitioners, and they were expected to respond to it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner are liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's prayer for such relief and the subsequent issuance of a summon under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand GST Act? 2. Whether the order of seizure issued vide FORM GST INS-02 dated 04.03.2023, directing the petitioner to appear on 16.03.2023, and the letter dated 04.03.2023, seizing Rs. 6,98,140/-, are liable to be quashed or set aside? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner sought to quash the search and seizure proceedings, the seizure order, and the seizure letter, arguing that the seizure was without authority of law and sought a refund of the seized amount with interest. The petitioner also sought a direction to restrain coercive action. Revenue's Contentions: The learned State Counsel submitted that a summon under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand GST Act has been issued to the petitioners, and they may respond to the said summon.