Skip to content

CMA Final · Indirect Tax Laws and Practice · Inspection, Search, Seizure, Arrest and Prosecution

A search authorised under section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is being conducted at the premises of Mehta Metals. The occupant refuses access to a locked almirah and an electronic device suspected to contain accounts. Which statement is correct per section 67 and Rule 139?

Where access is denied, the authorised officer may break open the almirah or electronic device under section 67(4), without a Magistrate's order. The officer must also prepare an inventory of what is seized and get it signed by the person from whom it was seized, per Rule 139(5).

  1. AThe officer must obtain a Magistrate's order before breaking open the almirah
  2. BThe officer may break open the almirah and electronic device where access is denied, and must prepare a signed inventory of items seizedCorrect
  3. CThe officer may only serve an order of prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 and cannot break open anything
  4. DThe officer may seize only documents, not electronic devices

Explanation

Section 67(4) empowers the authorised officer to seal or break open premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle where access is denied. Rule 139(5) requires an inventory with description, quantity and so on, signed by the person from whom the items are seized. No Magistrate order is needed, and INS-03 applies when seizure of goods is not practicable.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Inspection, Search, Seizure, Arrest and Prosecution shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Inspection, Search, Seizure, Arrest and ProsecutionFree diagnostic mock

More Inspection, Search, Seizure, Arrest and Prosecution questions