Although the statute has been worded in a ambiguous manner, but on the basis of bare reading of the above provisions, it can be observed that Section 67 puts onerous condition rather than Section 71 for being exercised. Following are the conditions-
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna in the case of Sri Sai Food Grain & Iron Stors set aside the demand order against the Assessee due to procedural violations during inspection and confirmed tampering of the seizure order by a tax officer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Khandelwal dismissed the SLP, upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein the Court directed to return the seized currency and other valuable assets to the Assessee and held that the Revenue Department has no power to seize cash and any other items under Section 67 of the CGST Act.
Care must be taken that once the SCN is issued, it is the conclusion of the ‘investigation’ and therefore there is no further reason for Revenue to keep custody of seized articles. The Application must be preferred under section 67(6) to seek provisional release of seized ariticles.
No, the Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of Kanak Timber House disposed of the writ petition opining that a person cannot seek the release of the goods by way of filing the writ petition and is required to file application under sub-section (6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017.
HC directed dept. to remit cash seized during search and seizure operation along with interest to assessee
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kanak Timber House disposed of the writ petition, thereby holding that, a person cannot seek the release of the goods by way of filing writ petition and is required to file application under Section 67(6) of the CGST Act.
