CA Final · Indirect Tax Laws · Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest
Officers searching the premises of Rao Steel in Hyderabad seized 40 tonnes of steel coils that are liable to confiscation. The coils were provisionally released on execution of a bond and security. Separately, a proper officer also seized a bulky stock of machines at Rao's yard where physical seizure was impracticable. Which statement is correct?
Seized goods may be released provisionally either on a bond with security as prescribed, or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty. Where seizure is impracticable, the officer may serve an order of prohibition in FORM GST INS-03, and the owner cannot deal with the goods without the officer's prior permission.
- ASeized goods can be released provisionally on a bond and security as prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty; for impracticable seizure, the officer may serve an order of prohibition (FORM GST INS-03)Correct
- BSeized goods can be released provisionally only on full payment of tax, interest and penalty; bond and security are not an option
- CFor goods whose seizure is impracticable, the officer must abandon the proceedings against them
- DAn order of prohibition under FORM GST INS-03 lets the owner sell the goods freely after informing the officer
Explanation
Section 67(6) allows provisional release on execution of a bond and furnishing of security as prescribed, or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty. The proviso to section 67(2) and the rules allow an order of prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 where seizure is not practicable. The owner then cannot remove, part with or deal with the goods without the officer's prior permission, so the sale option is wrong. The bond-only restriction and abandonment options contradict the text.
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
- Mehta Logistics, a goods transport operator in Pune, is suspected of keeping consignments in its godown that have escaped payment of tax. A …
- During a search at the premises of Kapoor Traders in Jaipur, the authorised officer seized account books on 10 March. The books were not rel…
- Under the CGST Rules, a Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that a premises is to be visited for inspection, search or seizure. Which …
- Where it is not practicable to seize goods during a search, the proper officer under the CGST Rules serves an order on the owner or custodia…
- Mehta Logistics runs a godown in Pune. Based on information, a Joint Commissioner of CGST believes the godown keeps goods that have escaped …
- Ganesh Steel Ltd, Raipur, is under search. The authorised officer is denied access to a locked almirah and an electronic device where record…