Skip to content

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

Officers seized a consignment at the premises of Gupta Foods under section 67(2). The proper officer finds it practicable to leave the goods with Gupta Foods, who is entrusted with their custody. Which statement is correct under Rule 139?

The seizure order is made in FORM GST INS-02, and if custody is entrusted to Gupta Foods for safe upkeep, it must not remove, part with or deal with the goods without the officer's previous permission. Entrustment does not end the seizure, and an inventory is still prepared.

  1. AGupta Foods may sell the goods once an inventory is signed
  2. BThe order of seizure is in FORM GST INS-02, and Gupta Foods must not remove or part with the goods without the officer's previous permissionCorrect
  3. CNo order is needed as goods left with the owner are not treated as seized
  4. DThe goods must be released automatically after entrustment to the owner

Explanation

Rule 139(2) requires an order of seizure in FORM GST INS-02. Rule 139(3) allows the officer to entrust custody to the owner for safe upkeep, and the owner must not remove, part with or deal with the goods without previous permission. Rule 139(5) also requires an inventory signed by the person from whom goods are seized, but this does not permit sale or release.

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