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

Facts

The petitioners, Shama Fatima and another, filed writ petitions challenging an order of seizure dated August 1, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 2 (State Tax Department). The seizure involved articles belonging to the petitioners, including phones, laptops, iPads, pen drives, DVRs, and cash. The investigation pertained to M/s. Lucky Steel, a proprietorship firm of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner argued that she was neither a proprietor nor partner nor director nor authorized signatory of the firm, and the seized articles were for personal use. An application for release of articles was made on October 18, 2021, but no response was received. Subsequently, in compliance with a court order dated April 25, 2022, some seized items were released in both petitions.

Held

The Court noted that in compliance with a previous order dated April 25, 2022, a significant number of seized articles had already been released in both petitions. However, specific items remained to be returned: in SCA No. 17882/2021, an iPhone 12 Pro Max, a Lenovo laptop, and a DVR; and in SCA No. 17883/2021, an iPhone mobile and an Oppo mobile. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, under instructions, stated that these remaining items would be released and handed over to the petitioners not later than July 31, 2022, as and when the details were retrieved from the electronic gadgets. Based on this statement, the Court found that the petitions would not survive and disposed of them accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of personal articles belonging to the petitioner, who is neither a registered nor taxable person under the GST Act, is legally sustainable, particularly when these articles are used for personal purposes? (Section 67 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the seized articles were for personal use and that she was not involved in the business of M/s. Lucky Steel. Therefore, the seizure was without authority of law and the articles should be returned. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the seizure order was passed in connection with an investigation into M/s. Lucky Steel and was therefore just and proper.