Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Prakash Shrivastava and Vandana Kasrekar, JJ., dismissed a petition which was filed challenging a notice whereby the premises of the petitioner had been sealed under the provisions of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “GST Act”).
The petitioner was the manufacturer of sweet betel nut and which has all the necessary licenses and permissions for this purpose and is regularly paying the GST case of the petitioner is that the Plot No.15-A/B-1, Sector-B, Industrial Area, Sanwer
Road, Indore belonged to Shri Kishore Wadhwani and he had taken this plot on lease from Shri Kishore Wadhwani and was running the manufacturing unit on this plot. The further case of the petitioner was that apart from the above, it had no connection with Shri Kishore Wadhwani. Earlier in the year 2011 Excise Department had taken certain action against the petitioner but nothing incriminating was found. On 20-06-2020, by the impugned notice the factory premises of the petitioner had been sealed. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Sunil Jain and Mr Kushagra Jain submitted that though the action relating to search and seizure u/S.67 of the GST Act has been taken, but the requisite procedure had not been followed. They further submitted that the petitioner apprehended that the search and seizure may not be carried out in a fair manner and the confession of the petitioner may be recorded under pressure, therefore, a direction be issued for carrying out the search in the present of an Advocate. Counsel for the respondent, Mr Prasanna Prasad submitted that the officials of the respondents had approached the factory premises of the petitioner on 20-06-2020 for the purpose of search and seizure by following the due procedure in accordance with Sec.67 of the Act, but since the premises was found locked, therefore, the option was either to break open the lock and carry out the search or to seal the premises and thereafter carry out the search of the premises in the presence of the petitioner. He also submitted that the two independent witnesses will be kept as required by law and procedure prescribed in law will be duly followed in true letter and spirit.
The Court perused the Section 67 of GST Act and held that the search is yet to take place in the present case and the counsel for respondents had duly assured this court that the aforesaid provision will be complied with therefore no direction in this regard at this stage is required. The Court relied on the judgment of Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise, (1992) 3 SCC 259 wherein during the investigation and interrogation under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1973 and Customs Act, a prayer was made for assistance of the lawyer and the Supreme Court had held that,
“11- We do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. Salve and Mr. Lalit that if a person is called away from his own house and questioned in the atmosphere of the customs office without the assistance of his lawyer or his friends his constitutional right under Article 21 is violated. The argument proceeds thus: if the person who is used to certain comforts and convenience is asked to come by himself to the Department for answering question it amounts to mental torture. We are unable to agree. It is true that large majority of persons connected with illegal trade and evasion of taxes and
duties are in a position to afford luxuries on lavish scale of which an honest ordinary citizen of this country cannot dream of and they are surrounded by persons similarly involved either directly or indirectly in such pursuits. But that cannot be a ground for holding that he has a constitutional right to claim similar luxuries and company of his choice. Mr. Salve was fair enough not to pursue his argument with reference to the comfort part, but continued to maintain that the appellant is entitled to the company of his choice during the questioning. The purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act and the other similar statutes will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. For achieving the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a non cooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be “expanded” to favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer. Applying the ‘just, fair and reasonable test’ we hold that there is no merit in the stand of appellant before us.”
The Court dismissed the petition holding that there was no need for interference.[Subhash Joshi v. Director General of GST Intelligence, WP No.9184 of 2020, decided on 03-07-2020]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
