Customs Search & Seizure — Sections 100–110 & 104 of the Customs Act

Of course. As a Senior GST Legal Analyst, here is a structured summary of the judgment in *Ashok Parasuram Uthale vs The Intelligence Officer*. *** ### **Judgment Summary** **Case Title:** Ashok Parasuram Uthale vs The Intelligence Officer **Court:** High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam **Judge:** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas **Date of Judgment:** 20th February 2025 **Citation:** 2025:KER:14819 --- #### **1. Outcome** The writ petition was **dismissed**. However, the Court preserved the petitioner's liberty to seek the provisional release of the seized goods by availing the remedy provided under **Section 130(2) of the GST Act** during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings. #### **2. Core Issue** Whether a taxpayer is entitled to the mandatory provisional release of seized goods under **Section 67(6) of the GST Act** on the ground that the six-month period for issuing a show-cause notice has expired, especially when the tax authorities have already initiated confiscation proceedings under **Section 130** of the Act. #### **3. Key Facts** * **Petitioner:** A traditional goldsmith engaged in job work in Varkala, Kerala. * **Search and Seizure:** On 28.12.2023, GST intelligence officers searched the petitioner's shop and residence, seizing 3522.14 grams of gold and certain records under Section 67 of the GST Act. * **Petitioner's Claim:** The petitioner argued that since six months had passed from the date of seizure and no show-cause notice was issued, the goods were liable to be released provisionally upon furnishing a bond as per Section 67(6). * **Department's Action:** The Intelligence Officer issued a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 26.12.2024 under Section 130 of the GST Act, proposing to confiscate the seized gold. * **Allegations in SCN:** The department alleged that the petitioner had carried out unregistered sales of old gold worth ₹47.73 Crores and supplied gold to a jewellery store without valid tax invoices or documents. #### **4. Arguments** * **Petitioner's Arguments:** 1. The six-month statutory period under Section 67 for the retention of seized goods without a show-cause notice had expired. 2. Consequently, the petitioner was legally entitled to the provisional release of the seized gold upon furnishing a bond and security. 3. The confiscation notice under Section 130 was challenged. * **Respondents' (GST Department's) Arguments:** 1. The time limit for completing the investigation under Section 67 was validly extended by an order of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax on 22.06.2024, as permitted by the proviso to Section 67. 2. Therefore, the petitioner's claim based on the expiry of the time limit is legally untenable. 3. Since confiscation proceedings under Section 130 have already been initiated, the remedy of provisional release under Section 67(6) is no longer available. #### **5. Court’s Reasoning** 1. **On the Limitation Period:** The Court found the petitioner's contention regarding the expiry of the six-month period to be legally untenable. It accepted the department's submission that the time limit for the investigation had been validly extended under the proviso to Section 67 of the Act. 2. **On the Applicability of Section 67(6):** The Court held that the stage for seeking provisional release under Section 67(6) was "already over." Once confiscation proceedings under Section 130 are initiated by issuing a show-cause notice, the specific remedy under Section 67(6) is no longer available. The Court noted that the petitioner had not sought to avail this benefit before the Section 130 notice was issued. 3. **Validity of Confiscation Proceedings:** The Court observed that the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 could not be considered *prima facie* without authority, given the serious allegations of large-scale unregistered sales. It is for the petitioner to participate in these proceedings and present his case. 4. **Alternative Statutory Remedy:** The Court pointed out that the petitioner is not without a remedy. The GST Act itself provides a mechanism for the provisional release of goods even during confiscation proceedings. This remedy is available under **Section 130(2)**, which allows the owner of the goods to pay a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The petitioner was given the liberty to pursue this statutory remedy. #### **6. Statutory References** * **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the GST Act)** * **Section 67:** Power of inspection, search, and seizure. * **Section 67(6):** Provision for the release of seized goods on a provisional basis upon execution of a bond if no notice is issued within six months of the seizure. * **Proviso to Section 67:** Allows for the extension of the six-month period by a proper officer. * **Section 130:** Confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty. * **Section 130(2):** Provides an option to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. #### **7. Precedents Cited** None cited in the provided text of the judgment.

Of course. As a Senior GST Legal Analyst, here is a structured summary of the judgment. *** ### **Judgment Summary: Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya vs Union Of India And Anr** **Court:** The High Court of Judicature at Bombay **Case No:** Criminal Bail Application No. 420 of 2025 **Date of Judgment:** 18th July 2025 **Coram:** The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe --- #### **1. Outcome** The Criminal Bail Application was **allowed**. The applicant, Ashrafbhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya, was directed to be released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two local sureties, subject to certain conditions. #### **2. Core Issue** The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's arrest and subsequent detention were illegal due to the failure of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) to communicate the 'grounds of arrest' in writing, thereby violating the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory mandate of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. #### **3. Key Facts** * **Allegation:** The applicant is alleged to be the operator of M/s. Pathan Enterprise and other fake GST firms. He is accused of fraudulently availing and utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately ₹11.14 Crore and fraudulently passing on ITC of ₹9.61 Crore without any actual supply of goods or services. * **Arrest:** The applicant was arrested on 12th March 2024 by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Pune, for offences under the CGST Act, 2017. * **Custody:** The applicant has been in judicial custody for over 1 year and 4 months. * **Procedural History:** The applicant's initial bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. He then approached the High Court. * **Disputed Documents:** The case centered on two documents provided at the time of arrest: the 'Arrest Memo' and the 'Authorization to Arrest'. The DGGI claimed these documents fulfilled the legal requirement of informing the grounds of arrest. #### **4. Arguments** **a) Applicant's Arguments (Represented by Sr. Adv. Sudeep Pasbola):** * **Constitutional Violation:** The arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. * **Insufficiency of Documents:** The 'Arrest Memo' merely stated the sections under which the applicant was arrested and did not detail the factual grounds. The 'Authorization to Arrest' was an internal departmental document not addressed to the applicant and therefore could not be considered as communication of grounds to him. * **Prolonged Incarceration:** The applicant has been in jail for a significant period (1 year, 4 months) for an offence where the maximum punishment is 5 years. * **Trial Status:** The trial has not progressed despite multiple hearings. **b) Respondent's Arguments (DGGI, represented by Spl. P.P. Jitendra Mishra & Saket Ketkar):** * **Compliance Shown:** The grounds of arrest were sufficiently communicated through the Arrest Memo and the Authorization to Arrest, which the applicant acknowledged by making endorsements in Gujarati. * **Estoppel:** The applicant did not raise the grievance of non-communication of grounds at the time of remand or before the lower court, and is therefore estopped from raising it before the High Court. * **Sufficient Knowledge:** The applicant was aware of the basic facts of the case, i.e., his arrest in a GST evasion matter. * **Distinguishing Precedent:** The case of *Vineet Jain* was not applicable as the applicant in this case has another similar case pending in Surat, Gujarat, indicating antecedents. #### **5. Court’s Reasoning** * **Burden of Proof:** The Court held that when an accused alleges non-compliance with Article 22(1), the burden shifts to the arresting agency (DGGI) to prove that the constitutional and statutory requirements were met. * **Analysis of Arrest Memo:** The Court found the Arrest Memo inadequate. It merely mentioned the legal provisions (Section 132 of the CGST Act) but failed to provide the "basic facts constituting the grounds." This does not meet the standard required by law. * **Analysis of Authorization to Arrest:** The Court rejected this document as a valid communication of grounds for three key reasons: 1. It is an **internal communication** within the DGGI. 2. It is **not addressed** to the applicant. 3. It was issued under **Section 69(1)** of the CGST Act (power to authorize an arrest), whereas the duty to inform grounds of arrest falls under **Section 69(2)**. The DGGI conceded that no separate written grounds were provided under Section 69(2). * **Illegality of Arrest:** The Court concluded that the DGGI failed to discharge its burden. The non-communication of grounds of arrest in writing is a clear violation of Article 22(1). This constitutional breach rendered the arrest and the subsequent custody illegal. * **Duty to Grant Bail:** Citing Supreme Court precedents (*Prabir Purkayastha*, *Directorate of Enforcement v/s. Subhash Shrama*), the Court affirmed that once a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 is established, it is the duty of the Court to grant bail, as the very foundation of the detention is vitiated. * **Antecedents Not a Bar:** The Court dismissed the argument regarding the applicant's other pending case, holding that the pendency of other cases cannot be the sole basis for refusing bail, especially when the arrest itself is found to be illegal. #### **6. Statutory References** * **Constitution of India:** Article 21, Article 22(1), Article 22(5). * **Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017:** * Section 69 (Power to arrest) * Section 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) (Offences) * Section 132(2), 132(5) (Punishment, Cognizable & Non-bailable nature) * **Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):** Section 50. * **Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):** Section 483 (Bail Application provision). #### **7. Precedents Cited** * *Vineet Jain v. Union of India* * *Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another* * *Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)* * *Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India* * *Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh* * *Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Shrama* * *Prabhakar Tewari v. The State of U.P. and Another*

Of course. As a Senior GST Legal Analyst, here is a structured summary of the judgment. *** ### **Judgment Summary: M/S D.S. Enterprises vs Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods and Services Tax** **1. Outcome** This is an interim order. The High Court has not quashed the impugned order but has adjourned the matter to 13th November 2025, with the following directions: * **For the Petitioner:** To place on record proof of their business existence at the current registered address, along with details of the promoters and their movable/immovable assets. * **For the GST Department:** To produce the physical verification report that formed the basis for the cancellation of the Petitioner's registration. **2. Core Issue** The central issue is the legality of the retrospective cancellation of the Petitioner's GST registration (effective from 15th September 2017) based on the allegation that the firm was "non-existent" at its registered premises, especially when the physical verification report forming the basis of this conclusion was allegedly never shared with the Petitioner. **3. Key Facts** * The Petitioner, M/s D.S. Enterprises, faced a series of actions from the GST department regarding its registration. * **First Cancellation & Revocation:** An initial Show Cause Notice (SCN-1) dated 15th April 2021 was issued with a vague reason ('Others'), leading to registration cancellation. This cancellation was later revoked on 24th September 2021. * **Address Change:** The Petitioner successfully amended its principal place of business to a new "current address" on 1st February 2023. * **Second SCN:** A second SCN (SCN-2) was issued on 27th June 2023, but the proceedings were dropped after the Petitioner's reply. * **Third SCN & Final Cancellation:** A third SCN (SCN-3) was issued on 19th October 2023, alleging the Petitioner was non-existent at its current address based on a physical verification. This led to a retrospective cancellation of registration (effective from 15th Sept 2017) by an order dated 11th December 2023. * **Revision Application Rejected:** The Petitioner's revision application against this cancellation was rejected via the impugned order dated 8th August 2025. * The Petitioner has filed the current writ petition challenging this rejection. **4. Arguments** **Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Sr. Counsel):** * The Petitioner challenges the retrospective cancellation of its GST registration. * The physical verification report, which is the primary evidence for the cancellation, was never provided to the Petitioner, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice. * The Show Cause Notices did not mention the said physical verification report. * The Petitioner continues to conduct business from the registered "current address". **Respondent's Arguments (inferred from actions):** * The Petitioner was found to be non-existent/non-functional upon physical verification conducted at their registered premises. * This is a valid ground for cancelling the GST registration under the CGST Act. **5. Court’s Reasoning** * The Court observed a repeated pattern of Show Cause Notices being issued against the Petitioner on different grounds. * The Court identified the physical verification report as the genesis of the dispute but noted a significant procedural lapse: the SCNs did not mention this verification, and the report itself was not provided to the Petitioner. * The Court took "judicial notice" of another related case (*Rishi Enterprises*, W.P.(C) 4374/2025) involving an order against the Petitioner for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). This indicates the Court is aware of a broader context of potential non-compliance. * Before deciding the matter, the Court deemed it necessary to verify the claims of both parties by seeking documentary evidence of the Petitioner's existence and the department's verification report. **6. Statutory References** * **Constitution of India:** Article 226 (invoked for filing the writ petition). * **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act):** Section 67 (The physical verification was purportedly conducted under this section, which deals with the power of inspection, search, and seizure). **7. Precedents Cited** * The Court took judicial notice of its own order in **W.P.(C) 4374/2025 titled *Rishi Enterprises through its proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North***, disposed of on 20th August 2025. This case is noted to be in respect of fraudulent ITC availment by the Petitioner.

Of course. As a Senior GST Legal Analyst, here is a structured summary of the judgment in M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Cgst Delhi West & Ors. *** ### **Judgment Summary** **Case Title:** M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Cgst Delhi West & Ors. **Date of Judgment:** 3 March, 2025 **Court:** High Court of Delhi **Coram:** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar --- #### **1. Outcome** The Writ Petition was **allowed**. The Court directed the Respondents (GST Department) to: * **Release the seized goods** upon the Petitioner depositing the valued amount. * **Release all seized documents and electronic devices** (laptops, mobile phones, etc.) after making copies of the data, within four weeks. * Permit the Petitioner to take photocopies of all seized physical documents. * Conclude any pending proceedings regarding the alleged violation within six weeks. #### **2. Core Issue** Whether the continued seizure of goods under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 is legally valid when the initial six-month period is extended by the proper officer without providing prior notice and an opportunity of being heard to the person from whom the goods were seized. #### **3. Key Facts** * **Search & Seizure:** The GST Department conducted a search at the Petitioner's premises on 22/23 October 2020 and seized goods, documents, and electronic devices vide a seizure order dated 23 October 2020. * **Initial Seizure Period:** As per Section 67(7) of the CGST Act, the initial period for which goods can be held is six months, which was set to expire on 22 April 2021. * **Extension of Seizure:** On 16 April 2021, the department internally approved an extension of the seizure period for another six months, up to 21 October 2021. This extension was granted without giving any notice or hearing to the Petitioner. * **Show Cause Notice (SCN):** A Show Cause Notice for confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST Act was issued on 20 October 2021. The department claimed it was served on the same day by affixation, as the premises were locked and the proprietor was unreachable. * **Writ Petition:** The Petitioner challenged the continued retention of goods, arguing it was illegal due to the procedural lapses in extending the seizure period. #### **4. Arguments** **Petitioner (M/S Kashish Optics Ltd.):** * **Mandatory Return of Goods:** Under Section 67(7) of the CGST Act, goods must be returned if no notice is given within six months of seizure. * **Illegal Extension:** The extension of the seizure period was invalid as it was done without providing the Petitioner prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. * **Pari Materia Provision:** Section 67(7) of the CGST Act is *pari materia* (on the same subject) with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, Supreme Court precedents holding that a hearing is mandatory before extending seizure under the Customs Act are directly applicable. * **Insufficient Cause:** The internal note sheets do not show any "sufficient cause" for the extension; rather, they reveal the department's own inefficiencies. * **Delayed SCN:** The SCN for confiscation was effectively served only in March 2022, well beyond the maximum permissible seizure period of 12 months. **Respondents (GST Department):** * **Statutes Not Pari Materia:** Section 67 of the CGST Act is different from Section 110 of the Customs Act, so the Supreme Court judgments do not apply. * **No Hearing Required:** The language of Section 67(7) does not explicitly require a personal hearing before an extension is granted. * **Sufficient Cause Existed:** Internal file notings demonstrate that there was sufficient cause to extend the period, which was duly considered by the proper officer. * **Timely SCN:** The SCN was issued and served within the extended 12-month period via affixation, a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, as other methods were not possible. * **Provisional Release:** The Petitioner did not avail the option of provisional release of goods under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017. #### **5. Court’s Reasoning** * **Provisions are Pari Materia:** The Court rejected the department's argument and held that Section 67(7) of the CGST Act and Section 110(2) of the Customs Act are indeed *pari materia*. Both are fiscal statutes, deal with the seizure of goods based on a "reason to believe," and have serious repercussions for the assessee. The underlying principles are identical. * **Right to Notice is Fundamental:** Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in *Charan Das Malhotra* and *I.J. Rao*, the Court affirmed that a person has a right to the return of their goods after six months. This valuable statutory right cannot be defeated unilaterally without notice and a hearing. The power to extend seizure is quasi-judicial and requires a judicial approach. * **"Sufficient Cause" Requires Due Process:** The phrase "on sufficient cause being shown" in Section 67(7) implies an objective consideration. It cannot be a reason known only to the department. The affected party must be informed of the reasons for the proposed extension and given an opportunity to present their case against it. * **Department's Inefficiency is Not "Sufficient Cause":** The Court examined the department's internal note sheets and found they did not constitute "sufficient cause." In fact, the notes revealed the department's own "shoddy performance," including improper valuation, failure to properly describe the goods, and misplacement of key documents like the panchnama. Such internal failures cannot be used to the detriment of the assessee. * **Irrelevance of SCN for Confiscation:** The Court noted that a notice for confiscation under Section 130 is distinct from the requirement under Section 67(7). The validity of the seizure and its extension must be judged independently of the subsequent confiscation proceedings. The core issue was the legality of the extension, not the timing of the SCN. #### **6. Statutory References** * **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act):** * **Section 67(2):** Power to search and seize goods. * **Section 67(7):** Mandates return of goods if no notice is given within six months, with a proviso for a six-month extension on "sufficient cause being shown." * **Section 130:** Confiscation of goods or conveyances. * **Section 169:** Service of notice in certain circumstances. * **Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules):** * **Rule 140:** Procedure for provisional release of seized goods. * **Customs Act, 1962:** * **Section 110(2):** Provision for seizure and extension, held to be *pari materia* with Section 67(7) of the CGST Act. * **Section 124:** Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods. #### **7. Precedents Cited** * **Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, (1971) 1 SCC 697:** Established that the power to extend seizure is quasi-judicial and requires a hearing. * **I.J. Rao, Asst. Collector of Customs v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh, (1989) 3 SCC 202:** Affirmed the principles in *Charan Das Malhotra*, holding that the person from whom goods are seized is entitled to notice and a hearing before the seizure period is extended, as a valuable right to the return of goods is affected. * **Lokenath Tolaram v. B.N. Rangwani, (1974) 4 SCC 327:** Referenced in *I.J. Rao*.

Of course. As a Senior GST Legal Analyst, here is a structured summary of the judgment in *M/S N.P. Industries vs Union Of India & Ors*. *** ### **Judgment Summary** **Case Title:** M/S N.P. Industries vs Union Of India & Ors **Citation:** W.P.(C) 8053/2025 & W.P.(C) 8332/2025 **Court:** High Court of Delhi **Coram:** Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta **Date of Order:** May 30, 2025 --- #### **1. Outcome** The Delhi High Court **dismissed** the writ petitions. The Court declined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and the Income Tax Department. The petitioners' prayer for the release of the seized cash was not granted, and they were directed to raise their contentions before the respective departmental authorities by replying to the show-cause notices. #### **2. Core Issue** The central legal question raised was whether GST authorities are empowered to seize cash during a search operation under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. #### **3. Key Facts** * **Petitioners:** M/s N.P. Industries and M/s Arav Enterprises, proprietorships run by a father and son. * **Search Operation:** The DGGI conducted a search at the residential premises of the proprietors on February 27, 2024. * **Allegation:** The search was based on intelligence that the petitioners were availing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) through 13 non-existent firms. * **Seizure:** During the search, Rs. 25,30,000/- in cash was found. The DGGI "resumed" (seized) this cash, deeming it unaccounted for. * **Inter-Departmental Action:** The DGGI informed the Income Tax Department about the cash on February 29, 2024, and subsequently handed over the cash to them on March 4, 2024. * **Departmental Proceedings:** * **GST:** The DGGI issued a Show Cause Notice on July 29, 2024. * **Income Tax:** The Income Tax Department issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for re-assessment on March 26, 2025. * **Litigation:** The petitioners challenged the seizure of cash by filing writ petitions before the High Court, approximately one year and three months after the search and after both departments had initiated proceedings. #### **4. Arguments** * **Petitioner's Contentions:** The seizure of cash by the DGGI is illegal and in contravention of Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, as the provision does not empower the authorities to seize cash. * **Respondent's (DGGI) Contentions:** The search was lawfully conducted based on allegations of fake ITC. The unaccounted cash discovered during the search was appropriately handed over to the Income Tax Department, the competent authority to investigate unaccounted cash. #### **5. Court’s Reasoning** The Court's decision to dismiss the petitions was based on the following grounds: * **Delay and Laches:** The petitioners challenged the seizure after a significant delay of nearly one year and three months. * **Existence of Alternative Remedy:** The Court noted that both the DGGI and the Income Tax Department have already issued their respective notices, initiating formal proceedings. The petitioners have an adequate and effective remedy available to them by replying to these notices and defending their position before the departmental authorities. * **Non-Interference in Ongoing Proceedings:** Given that the statutory proceedings are already in motion, the Court found no compelling grounds to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere at this stage. * **Legal Contentions Left Open:** The Court deliberately did not rule on the substantive legal question of whether cash can be seized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. It explicitly stated that "All legal contentions are left open for the Petitioner Firms," meaning they can raise this argument before the adjudicating authorities during the SCN proceedings. #### **6. Statutory References** * **Constitution of India:** Article 226 * **Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:** Section 67 and Section 67(2) * **Income Tax Act, 1961:** Section 148 #### **7. Precedents Cited** None mentioned in the judgment.

Of course. As a Senior GST Legal Analyst, here is a structured summary of the provided court order. *** ### **Summary of Oral Order: Patna High Court** **Case:** M/S Sri Sai Food Grain And Iron Stors vs The State Of Bihar **Date of Order:** February 12, 2025 **Case Number:** Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13674 of 2024 **Bench:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra --- #### **1. Outcome** The matter has been adjourned. The Court has re-listed the case for the next hearing on **February 19, 2025**. No final decision has been made on the merits of the case. #### **2. Core Issue** The central legal issue is the correct interpretation and scope of **Section 67(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017**. Specifically, the Court is examining whether the terms 'Inspection' or 'Inspection Report' fall within the ambit of this subsection. #### **3. Key Facts** The provided oral order is procedural and does not detail the specific facts of the case. The dispute evidently arises from an action taken under Section 67 of the CGST Act, leading to a legal challenge regarding the interpretation of its sub-section (10). #### **4. Arguments** The order does not outline the specific arguments made by the petitioner or the respondent. However, it can be inferred that one of the parties (likely the respondent/department) has argued that an 'Inspection' or 'Inspection Report' is governed by the provisions of Section 67(10). The Court's observation indicates its initial skepticism towards this line of argument. #### **5. Court’s Reasoning** The High Court expressed its *prima facie* (at first glance) dissatisfaction with the interpretation that 'Inspection' or 'Inspection Report' is covered under Section 67(10) of the CGST Act. The Bench has not yet provided a detailed rationale but has identified this as a critical point of law that requires further examination. To resolve this legal ambiguity, the Court has directed the counsels for both parties to provide binding judicial authority on the matter. #### **6. Statutory References** * **Section 67(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.** #### **7. Precedents Cited** No precedents were cited by the Court in this order. On the contrary, the Court has specifically directed the respective counsels to find and present any relevant judgments from the **Hon'ble Supreme Court** to assist in the interpretation of the statutory provision in question.