The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search.
The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the “documents, books, or things” can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund.
The petitioner/assessee has sought direction to return his laptop, computer, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in a search conducted on August 28, 2019.
The petitioner contended that Section 67(7) of the CGST Act, 2017 required that, when a seizure is affected, the goods ought to be returned within six months. There was no proper seizure. Moreover, since the authorities have already taken a backup of the data, the main laptop ought to be released to the petitioner.
The department submitted that under Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017, when a determination of tax is to be made in respect of input tax credit that is wrongly availed of by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax , the proper officer has to pass an order within a period of five years. This is in contrast with the determination of tax under Section 73(10), where no fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression is involved, and wherein a period of three years is provided for passing the order.
The court held that the proper officer under Section 74(2) has to issue a show-cause notice as per Section 74 at least six months prior to the time limit specified in Sub-section 74(10) for issuance of the order. Under sub-section 74(10), the proper officer has five years from the date of the erroneous refund to pass the order in such cases. A conjoint reading of Section 74(2) and Section 74(10) would clearly show that the maximum period for issuance of the show-cause notice is six months prior to five years from the date of the erroneous refund.
“This Court does not deem it appropriate to direct release of the computer, laptop, documents, and other things seized pursuant to Punchnama dated 28th August 2019,” the court ordered.
Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General
Citation: WP(C) 7517/2020
Date: 12.12.2022
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Akhil Krishnan Maggu
Counsel For Respondent: Advocates Ravi Prakash, Varun Aggarwal, Farman Ali
Click Here To Read Order
.