NOTIFICATIONS
| Notification No. | Subject |
| Notifies goods which shall be disposed off by the Proper Officer after its seizure having regard to perishable and hazardous nature etc. |
INSTRUCTIONS
| Instruction No. | Subject |
| Guidelines for CGST field formations in maintaining ease of doing business while engaging in investigation with regular taxpayers | |
| Instructions No. 01/2020-21 dt. 02.02.2021 [GST-Investigation] | Instructions / Guidelines regarding procedures to be followed during Search Operation |
CASE LAW
|
Authority |
One liner |
|
2025(03)LCX0313 Delhi High Court Kashish Optics Limited |
Court ruled that the seizure of goods was invalid due to the department's failure to provide proper notice U/S 67 (7) of the CGST Act before extending the seizure period, violating legal requirements |
|
2025(02)LCX0074 Allahabad High Court Dayal Product |
Proceedings u/s 73/74 of GST Act ought to have been initiated instead of section 130 of the GST Act, if some discrepancy in stock is found against the registered dealer. |
|
2025(01)LCX0375 Karnataka High Court Kesar Colour Chem Industries |
Statements were recorded and deposits were made under threat and coercion during ongoing investigation, accordingly order passed by ld. Single judge declaring recoveries to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from assessee as being illegal, is upheld. |
|
2024(11)LCX0430 Karnataka High Court Vaishan Traders IV |
Since Assessee has been afforded an opportunity of hearing, it is open for him to respond to the discrepancies as pointed by department pursuant to search conducted u/s 67(2) of KGST Act and take all contentions permissible under law. |
|
2024(09)LCX0010 Delhi Tribunal Churchit International |
Any amount deposited during investigation is Revenue Deposit which cannot be retained without legal authority and must be refunded with interest unless a valid demand is made against the depositor. |
|
2024(08)LCX0329 Supreme court of India Deepak Khandelwal |
No case for interference is made out in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, therefore the SLP against judgment dated 17-08-2023 in WPC No. 6739/2021 passed by the High Court Of Delhi are, accordingly, dismissed. |
|
2023(08)LCX0009 Delhi High Court Deepak Khandelwal |
Even if, it is accepted, that the proper officer could seize the currency and other valuable assets in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Act, the same were required to be returned by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act because the silver bars and currency have not been relied upon in the notice issued subsequently |
|
2024(02)LCX0124 Delhi High Court Jagdish Bansal |
Cash is excluded from term goods and could not have been seized under GST Act. |
|
2024(02)LCX0053 Delhi High Court K.M. Foods Infrastructure Pvt Ltd |
CGST Officers had no power to seize the cash in exercise of its powers under Section 67 (2) of the CGST Act. |
|
2023(12)LCX0103 Delhi High Court Sapphire Intrex Limited |
|
|
2023(12)LCX0045 Delhi High Court Lovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas |
Authorization for conducting search or inspection u/s 67 CGST Act is illegal for want of reasons to believe that the grounds for conducting the said search as set out in Section 67(1)(a) exist. |
|
2023(11)LCX0353 Orissa High Court Jagannathdham Superstructures Private Limited |
Mere issuance of a SCN does not imply the
conclusion of the investigation process or the final decision. Refusal to provide certified copies of the order sheet/note sheet and search warrant is valid due to pending investigation and final adjudication. |
|
2023(10)LCX0196 Gujarat High Court Bharatkumar Pravinkumar And Co. |
|
|
2023(08)LCX0095 Delhi High Court Goyal Metal Udyog |
Commissioner CGST had no power to seize cash on the suspicion that it was unaccounted cash. |
|
2023(04)LCX0044 Punjab & Haryana High Court Modern Insecticide Ltd |
|
|
2023(01)LCX0192 Gujarat High Court Shree Ganesh Molasses Trading Co. |
Revenue is required to refund the ITC along with interest, reversal of which done under threat, coercion and without the Will of the petitioner. |
|
2022(12)LCX0211 Delhi High Court Vallabh Textiles |
No recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection or investigation unless it is voluntary. |
|
2021(03)LCX0140 Delhi High Court Rashi Peripherals Private Limited |
|
|
2021(02)LCX0005 Delhi High Court Rajesh Kumar Patawa |
|
|
2021(02)LCX0001 Gujarat High Court Universal Dyechem Private Limited |
The High Court disposed of the writ application, directing the respondent to review the representation and make a decision on the release of seized documents within one week. |
|
2020(09)LCX0053 Madhya Pradesh High Court Agrawal Oil Mill |
Withholding supply of copies/extracts of documents seized is judicial if it could adversely affect investigation. |
|
2020(08)LCX0078 Madhya Pradesh High Court Kanishka Matta |
The classification of cash as a thing under Section 67 of the CGST Act. |
|
2020(07)LCX0080 Calcutta High Court J.S. Pigments Private Ltd |
Person from whose custody documents are seized u/s 67(2) entitled to make copies u/s 67(5). |
|
2020(07)LCX0016 Madhya Pradesh High Court Subhash Joshi & another |
The submission of the counsel for petitioner to carry out the search and seizure operation in the presence of the petitioner cannot be accepted. |
|
2020(03)LCX0139 Andhra Pradesh High Court Mahendra Kumar Indermal |
Deputy assistant commissioner is not competent to pass order of prohibition u/s 67(2) |
|
2019(08)LCX0189 Bombay High Court High Ground Enterprises Ltd |
Directed to furnish to assessee copies of documents seized within two weeks |
|
2018(04)LCX0146 Gujarat High Court Remark Flour Mills Private Limited |
Collecting post-dated cheques under coercion during raid is not permissible means of collection of revenue particularly when no tax demand has been confirmed or crystallized. |