IMPORTANT POINTS
The attachment order specifically spoke of proceedings under Sections 67 and 70 as against Kaish Impex Private Limited. The power to provisionally attach, for the purpose of protecting revenue, is available under Section 83. Such attachment is also in the context of proceedings initiated under the specified Sections of the GST Act. The Division Bench found that Section 70 is not specified in Section 83 and there was no proceeding under Section 67 against Kaish Implex Private Limited.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioners, the Managing Director and Director of a Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in providing Cable Services as a Multi Service Operator (MSO) under the Telephone Regulatory of India (TRAI) Regulations, are in appeal. The appellants allege that illegal proceedings were taken against them, purportedly under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['CGST Act' for brevity], and their residences and offices were raided, both of them kept under illegal custody and an amount of Rupees One Crore extorted from them. On the intervention of their Advocate at mid-night, they were released, allege the appellants. The appellants, in the writ petition prayed for (i) setting aside Exhibit P2 notice, requiring them to provide information issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO), (ii) invalidation of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act evidenced by Exhibit P4, (iii) refund of Rupees One Crore collected by the 4th and 5th respondents, (iv) a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by the Local Cable Operator ['LCO' for brevity] as also (v) compensation for the damage to the reputation of the petitioners and the mental agony suffered.

2. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petition is premature and there was no evidence produced by the petitioners to substantiate the contention of harassment perpetrated on them. The learned Single Judge held that it is inappropriate to form an opinion regarding the allegations raised, at this stage, especially for reason of there being no supporting material to establish the allegations. The learned Single Judge refused exercise of discretion under Article 226 and the reliefs sought for were declined. The petitioners are in appeal against the findings and also produce further documents issued in the course of the investigation attaching their Bank accounts. These orders of attachment were produced for the first time in appeal, because the attachment was effected after the disposal of the writ petition.

3. We have heard Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday, learned Senior Counsel, through video-conferencing, instructed by Advocate Sri. Sandeep Gopalakrishnan, Sreelal N Warrier, learned Standing Counsel for the Department and its officers, as also Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, learned Counsel appearing for the State GST Department.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday argued that the entire proceedings are illegal and that there is untold misery caused to the appellants by reason of the high handed action of the respondent-officers who acted beyond the scope of their authority. It is pointed out that under Section 65 there was an audit initiated, as is evidenced from Exhibit P5 dated 15.05.2020, pending which investigation was initiated under Section 67 without any reasonable cause. Surprise raid was conducted at the offices and residences of the appellants, which commenced in the early morning and ended only at Midnight. The appellants were taken into illegal custody and not provided even basic amenities during the entire period. The appellants were also coerced into parting with Rupees One Crore, which is evidenced by Exhibit P3. Exhibit P3 is made not voluntarily and was executed under duress. Exhibit P4 order of seizure is without jurisdiction for reason of the SIO, having entered into a satisfaction or rather arrived at reasons to believe that the documents annexed therein were required to be seized. Section 67 specifically mandates such reasons to believe to be entered into by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Commissioner, which the SIO is not. The summons issued against the appellants, as is seen at Annexures A2 and A3 prior to the inspection, does not have the Document Identification Number ['DIN' for brevity], which is an imperative requirement as per Annexure A6 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [hereinafter referred to as