Snapshot-42-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129 and
Section
130

Inter-play between
Section 129 and 130 in
Question

Aahana Sales (P.)
Ltd. v. Union of India
[2023] 151
taxmann.com 230
(Gujarat)

Petitioner contended that when goods were in transit, the authorities intercepted the goods and confiscated them. In other words,
authorities sought to derive their powers for taking possession of the goods of the petitioner which were in transit under Section 129
of the Act. It was submitted that the said Section begins with non obstante clause and it is a provision independent of Section 130. In
that context, it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and passing
order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be said to be without
jurisdiction. Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022 and other matters have been entertained by this court involving the same point
and interim relief of release of the goods and conveyance has also been granted on condition.
The High court directed that upon compliance of the required conditions stated in the order, goods and vehicle both shall be released
by the authorities and the petition be listed with Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022

2

Section
112

Status of Recovery of
demand on account of
non-constitution of
Tribunal.

SAJ Food Products
(P.) Ltd. v. State of
Bihar [2023] 151
taxmann.com 229
(Patna)

The High Court held that subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in
dispute, or deposit of the same, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section
107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the
B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The
recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.
Case Referred- Angel Engicon Private Limited v. the State of Bihar & Anr. passed in C.W.J.C No. 1920 of 2023

3

Section
67

GST officers have no
power to seize any cash
in exercise of its powers
under Section 67(2) of
the GST Act

Arvind Goyal CA v.
Union of India [2023]
151 taxmann.com
228 (Delhi)

The petitioner had contended that GST officers had no power to seize any cash in exercise of its powers under Section 67(2) of the
GST Act. The department contended that that the officers had merely "resumed" cash as is noted in the panchnama and therefore,
the same cannot be considered as seizure. The High Court observed that Prima facie, a plain reading of Section 67(2) of the GST
Act indicates that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things, which may be "useful for
or relevant to any proceedings under this Act". Clearly, cash does not fall within the definition of goods. And, prima facie, it is difficult
to accept that cash could be termed as a 'thing' useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section
67(2) of the GST Act also provides that the books or things so seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be
necessary "for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act." However, Court thereafter noted that there was
no occasion for the Court to examine the aforesaid question as it was the respondents' stand that the cash was not seized.
It was contended by the respondent that seizure memo was not prepared as the officers, who had conducted the search operation,
had, in fact, not seized any cash. It was observed by the High Court that there was no provision in the GST Act that could support an
action of forcibly taking over possession of currency from the premises of any person, without effecting the same. The powers of
search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions
are satisfied. Thus, it was held that the action of taking away currency was illegal and without any authority of law respondents were
directed to forthwith return the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the petitioners and the bank guarantee
furnished by petitioner for release of currency was directed to be released forthwith

4

Section
107

Opportunity of being
heard to be given
considering the reason
for seeking adjournment
was reasonable

Swaraj Equipment
(P.) Ltd. v.
Commissioner
(Appeals II) [2023]
151 taxmann.com
227 (Madras)

The only grievance put forth was that the petitioner was not heard prior to passing of the impugned order. The officer records that
though personal hearing was fixed on 06.01.2023 and re-fixed on 08.02.2023, on both occasions, only adjournment was sought on
the ground that additional information was to be collected. However, the assessee pointed out that marriage reception of his daughter
was on 04.02.2023, on account of which, he was unable to collect the requisite particulars. The High Court was of the considered
view that the aforesaid reason constitutes sufficient cause and that the officer ought to have taken note of the same and re-schedule
the date of hearing to accommodate the request as aforesaid and thus the impugned order was set aside, appeal stood restored