Order Date – 12 December 2022

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Dhruv Krishan Maggu, found to be involved in the process of availing fraudulent IGST refunds and siphoning the same.
• The search and seizure were conducted at B-773, Sushant Lok-1, Gurugram, Haryana in which computer, laptops, documents and other documents were seized.

Issue –

• Whether the department had properly seized computer, laptops, documents and other documents of the petitioner?

Order –

• The Hon’ble High Court observed that there is a clear distinction brought about in the CGST Act in case of inspection, search and seizure of “documents or books or things” in contrast to seizure of “goods”. A perusal of sub-section 67(2) of the CGST Act makes it clear that whereas the first proviso would apply qua seizure of goods.
• In the case of documents or books or things, the same can be retained by the officer for so long as it is required for examination and for inquiry of proceedings under the CGST Act. This is in contrast with Section 67(7) as per which when goods are seized, the said seized goods have to be returned to the person who whom they were seized within six months of the seizure of goods, unless and until, the proper officer on sufficient cause, extends the same for a further period of not exceeding then six months.
• 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. As per Section 67(3), if the documents, books or things are not being relied upon for the issuance of notice under the CGST Act, the same are supposed to be returned within a period not exceeding thirty days from the issue of the said notice. 
• Thus, by a conjoint reading of sections 67(2) second proviso, 67(3), 74(2), 74(10) the ‘documents or book or things’ can be retained for a maximum period of four and half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of erroneous refund.
• In the present case, the said period had not yet lapsed. Accordingly, it does not deem it appropriate to direct release of the computer, laptop, documents and other things seized vide punchnama dated 28th August, 2019. 
• The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.