Skip to content

CA Final · Indirect Tax Laws · Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest

Acting on authorisation, an officer searched the premises of Desai Enterprises, Surat, and found that a steel almirah and an electronic device were locked, with the person in charge refusing access. Desai says the officer cannot force them. Later, Desai asks to copy seized invoices; the officer thinks copying would prejudicially affect the investigation. Which combination is correct under section 67?

The officer may break open the almirah and the electronic device because access was denied, and Desai's right to take copies is lost if the proper officer opines that copying would prejudicially affect the investigation. Section 67(4) and 67(5) provide both rules, and no Magistrate order is required.

  1. AThe officer may break open the almirah and device where access is denied, and Desai's right to copy is excluded if the proper officer so opinesCorrect
  2. BThe officer may break open the almirah but not the electronic device, and Desai may always copy the invoices
  3. CThe officer needs a Magistrate's order to break open anything, and Desai may always take copies
  4. DThe officer may not break open anything, but Desai's right to copy is excluded

Explanation

Section 67(4) lets the officer authorised under sub-section (2) seal or break open premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle where access is denied. Section 67(5) entitles the person to copies or extracts in the presence of an authorised officer, except where, in the proper officer's opinion, this would prejudicially affect the investigation. So both limbs of the first option hold, while the others wrongly exclude electronic devices, demand a Magistrate's order, or make copying absolute.

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