Don’t Use Threats, Coercion During Search and Seizure for Recovering GST: SC Tells Centre

The Supreme Court’s recent directive to the Centre highlights a significant aspect of tax recovery processes under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Here’s a breakdown of the key points discussed during the proceedings and the implications of the court’s stance.

Introduction to the Supreme Court Directive

The Supreme Court, in its recent directive, has instructed the Centre to refrain from employing threats and coercion during search and seizure operations aimed at recovering GST dues from traders. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, M M Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi, emphasized the need for a non-coercive approach in dealing with tax liabilities.

Lack of Provision for Coercion in GST Act

During the hearing, the bench pointed out the absence of any provision within the GST Act that authorizes authorities to exert force for the payment of outstanding tax dues. This observation underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and avoiding undue pressure on taxpayers.

Voluntary Payment Emphasized by the Bench

The court stressed the importance of voluntary compliance with tax obligations and urged the authorities to allow alleged offenders sufficient time to consult and clear their liabilities without resorting to coercion or threats of arrest.

Allegations of Coercion and Threats During Search and Seizure Operations

Several petitioners raised concerns about instances where authorities allegedly employed threats and coercion during search and seizure operations. The bench acknowledged the disparity between legal provisions and practical implementation, emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent approach.

Examination of Safeguards and Compliance with GST Law

The court highlighted the need for strict adherence to the safeguards provided under the GST law, particularly regarding the power to arrest (section 69) and the power to summon (section 70). It emphasized the importance of applying these provisions judiciously to prevent harassment of taxpayers.

Concerns Over the Increasing Arrests Under GST Regime

The discussion also delved into the rising number of arrests and confiscations under the GST regime, with some petitioners expressing alarm over the frequency of pre-conviction arrests. The court expressed its intent to examine this trend further to ensure procedural fairness.

Focus on Biases in Proceedings and Need for Examination

Concerns were raised regarding potential biases in proceedings, particularly if the same officers are involved in issuing notices, recording statements, and conducting adjudication proceedings. The court signaled its readiness to scrutinize this issue to uphold the principles of impartiality and due process.

Inconclusive Hearing and Continuation of Discussion

The hearing remained inconclusive, with discussions set to continue in subsequent sessions. The court’s engagement with various stakeholders underscores its commitment to addressing concerns related to tax enforcement practices effectively.

Court’s Previous Directive to the Centre

The court had previously directed the Centre to provide details about the issuance of notices and arrests under the GST Act. This directive reflects the court’s proactive approach to ensuring legal clarity and preventing the misuse of statutory powers.

Ambiguity in Section 69 of the GST Act

The court expressed concern over the ambiguity in section 69 of the GST Act, which deals with the powers of arrest. It signaled its willingness to interpret the law in a manner that strengthens individual liberties while maintaining the integrity of tax enforcement mechanisms.

Supreme Court’s Stance on Interpreting the Law to Protect Citizen Rights

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to interpreting the law in a manner that safeguards the rights of citizens. While acknowledging the need for effective tax administration, the court underscored the importance of balancing enforcement measures with due regard for individual freedoms.