Case Law Details
Suresh Kumar P.P. Vs Deputy Director (Kerala High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the initiation of inspection, search and seizure under Section 67 of the CGST Act for goods kept under illegal custody is justified in law?
High Court states that, the allegations raised of harassment and high-handedness cannot be considered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. An operation carried out by a statutory authority invested with the powers of search, inspection and seizure, by reason only of such activities having been carried out in the residences and offices of any person under investigation for a long time, cannot be labeled as harassment or high-handed. Nor could the inconvenience caused to the person under investigation, especially of remaining in the premises for the entire duration, termed to a detention pursuant to an arrest. A search and seizure operation necessarily brings with it certain discomforts, which are to be endured in the best interest of the person under investigation who witnesses every action of the inspection team. The allegations are also not substantiated which, HC perfectly understand, are impossible of substantiation, especially in a petition under Article 226. Apart from the invalidity urged of the very search, inspection and seizure, HC are not considering any of the issues so raised in the writ petition and in the appeal. Hence it is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The petitioners, the Managing Director and Director of a Company registered under the Companies Act,engaged in providing Cable Services as a Multi Service Operator (MSO) under the Telephone Regulatory of India (TRAI) Regulations, are in appeal. The appellants allege that illegal proceedings were taken against them, purportedly under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘CGST Act’ for brevity], and their residences and offices were raided, both of them kept under illegal custody and an amount of Rupees One Crore extorted from them. On the intervention of their Advocate at mid-night, they were released, allege the appellants. The appellants, in the writ petition prayed for (i) setting aside Exhibit P2 notice, requiring them to provide information issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO), (ii) invalidation of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act evidenced by Exhibit P4, (iii) refund of Rupees One Crore collected by the 4th and 5th respondents, (iv) a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by the Local Cable Operator [‘LCO’ for brevity] as also (v) compensation for the damage to the reputation of the petitioners and the mental agony suffered.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
