IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a show cause notice after the specified period does not invalidate the notice, and the court may reserve all rights and contentions of the parties in regard to the confiscation of goods.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, aggrieved by the search conducted in its premises on 05.05.2022 and 26.08.2022 under Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act'). The petitioner claims that the searches were conducted by the proper officer without having any reason to believe that the petitioner had suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods and services or to the stock of goods in its possession.

2. During the course of the proceedings, the concerned officer issued a demand cum show cause notice dated 01.03.2023 (hereafter `impugned show cause notice'). According to the petitioner, the impugned show cause notice was issued beyond the period as specified under Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, and therefore, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, on 24.05.2023, the petitioner moved an application (CM No.28074/2023) seeking early disposal of the above-captioned petition. On the said date, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition be confined to the petitioner's challenge to the impugned show cause notice. The petitioner had also moved an application seeking amendment in the writ petition. Although the petitioner has sought several prayers in its petition but it confined the petition to the limited extent of challenging the impugned show cause notice.

3. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present petition was heard confined to the said issue.

4. Mr. Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned show cause notice was issued beyond the period of six months, as contemplated under Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the CGST Act and therefore, the goods seized were liable to be returned. He also contended that the impugned show cause notice was, thus, barred by limitation.

5. He relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Devesh Radheshyamji Kabra v. State of Gujarat, 2021:GUJHC:4370-DB, and on the strength of the said decision, submitted that the goods seized are liable to be returned.

6. He also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Salman Khan v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6739 which was rendered in the context of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter `the Customs Act'). He submitted that the language of Section 110 of the Customs Act is similar to the language of Sub section (2) of Section 67 of the CGST Act.

7. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 to 8 countered the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the goods were seized on 21.09.2022 and the impugned show cause notice was issued on 01.03.2023, which was within the period of six months from the seizure of the said goods. Thus, according to him, the goods were not liable to be returned. He also submitted that subsequently on 29.05.2023, an order confiscating the goods, in question, was passed and the petitioner has challenged the said order in another petition filed in this court. He submitted that scheme of Section 67 of the CGST Act was materially different from the scheme of Section 110 of the Customs Act and therefore, the decision, rendered by courts in respect of the Customs Act were inapplicable to proceedings under the CGST Act. He earnestly contended that there was a distinction between `detention' of goods and their `seizure'. He submitted that it was not practicable to seize the goods immediately on conducting a search as it was necessary for the concerned officer to satisfy himself whether the goods are liable to confiscation. In addition, it was also necessary to comply with the principal of natural justice and afford the tax payer an opportunity to establish that the goods were not liable for confiscation. He submitted that, therefore, in the first instance, the proper officer had passed an order of prohibition under first proviso to Sub-se