Skip to content

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

Ganesh Steel Ltd, Raipur, is under search. The authorised officer is denied access to a locked almirah and an electronic device where records are suspected to be concealed. Later, the officer seizes bulky machinery that cannot practicably be removed. Which statement correctly reflects the CGST Act and Rules?

The officer may break open the almirah and the electronic device when access is denied. For machinery that cannot practicably be seized, he may serve an order of prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 forbidding removal or dealing without his permission.

  1. AThe officer may break open the almirah and electronic device, and for the machinery may serve an order of prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 instead of seizing itCorrect
  2. BThe officer may break open the almirah but not the electronic device, and must remove the machinery to the department's godown
  3. CThe officer needs a Magistrate's warrant to break open the almirah, and may only seal the machinery
  4. DThe officer may break open the almirah only after a notice, and the machinery must be left unrestricted

Explanation

Section 67(4) lets the authorised officer seal or break open doors, almirahs, electronic devices, boxes or receptacles where access is denied. The proviso to section 67(2) and rule 139(4) allow, where seizure is not practicable, an order of prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 that the owner shall not remove, part with or deal with the goods without permission. Other options wrongly exclude electronic devices or require a warrant.

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.

Practise Inspection, Search, Seizure and ArrestFree diagnostic mock

More Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest questions