CA Final · Indirect Tax Laws · Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest
A Joint Commissioner authorised an officer to search the premises of Rathi Steels, which has been accused of suppressing stock. At the premises, the owner refuses access to a locked almirah and a password-protected laptop believed to contain concealed records. Officers also seize records and the owner wants copies. Which course is consistent with section 67?
Officers may break open the almirah and electronic devices where access is denied, and the owner may take copies or extracts only in the presence of an authorised officer. Sections 67(4) and 67(5) allow this, subject to the proper officer's opinion that copying should not prejudice the investigation.
- AOfficers may break open the almirah and electronic devices where access is denied, and the owner may take copies or extracts in the presence of an authorised officer unless this would prejudice the investigationCorrect
- BOfficers may break open the almirah only, the laptop cannot be touched, and the owner has an unrestricted right to copies at any time
- COfficers must first obtain a Magistrate's order before breaking open any receptacle, and the owner cannot take copies
- DOfficers may break open the almirah and laptop only after a notice is issued, and the owner may take copies at his own premises without supervision
Explanation
Section 67(4) lets the authorised officer seal or break open premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle where access is denied. Section 67(5) lets the person take copies or extracts in the presence of an authorised officer at the time and place indicated, except where this would prejudicially affect the investigation. The other options wrongly exclude electronic devices, require a prior notice or Magistrate order, or make copying unrestricted or unsupervised.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest questions
- Officers seized 500 cartons of stock from Rao Traders' premises under section 67(2) on 10 March. No notice about the seized goods has been i…
- During a search at the premises of Kaveri Metals Ltd, an authorised officer seizes certain account books on 10 March. The officer did not re…
- Mehta Logistics runs a godown in Surat. A Joint Commissioner of central tax has reasons to believe that the godown owner is keeping goods wh…
- Officer Rao, authorised under section 67(2), visits the premises of Ganga Textiles in Surat. The proprietor refuses entry, and the almirah h…
- Officers inspecting Shree Logistics Pvt Ltd, a goods transport operator, seize a consignment of machinery. Under rule provisions, which acti…
- An authorised officer, on search of Verma Textiles' premises, finds the owner refusing access to a locked almirah and a password-protected l…