In Part I of this series, we explored how Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, begins its engagement with a taxable person in a considerate and respectful manner. Instead of starting with accusations, it begins with an inspection-a careful, deliberate process where the law gently observes, verifies, and clarifies. As we discussed, inspection serves as the law's first step: it is limited to business premises, initiated only upon a recorded "reason to believe," and carried out with the approval and procedures of senior officials. This approach reassures us that GST enforcement is thoughtful and seeks understanding before making any conclusions, emphasising fairness and due process.
In Part II, the story moves forward. When inspection reveals signs that can't be resolved solely through verification, the law carefully shifts to search and seizure, not as a sign of dominance, but to gather evidence and protect the integrity of the tax system. We saw that even these strong powers come with safeguards: written approvals, inventory preparation, constructive seizure rather than physical seizure, judicial limits on cash seizures, and strict rules on how long to keep items. The message was clear: power under GST is real, but it's never meant to be wielded recklessly or unfairly, or permanently.
Enforcement is really just a tool, not the end goal. What truly matters is what happens after the law has done its job-once it has inspected, searched, or seized. It's about its ability to let go of what was temporarily held, return what's no longer needed, and bring things back to normal once the purpose has been fulfilled. Part III highlights this important, yet often overlooked, final phase of Section 67-where seized items and documents are provisionally released, perishable goods are carefully disposed of, records are provided within the required timeframes, and legal proceedings gradually end. It's in this phase that the law's authority turns into a promise of reassurance.
"सख़्ती से नहीं, समझ से रास्ते निकलते हैं,जहाँ क़ानून ठहरना जान ले, वहीं इंसाफ़ सँभलते हैं।"
And echoing the same sentiment through song -"रुक जाना नहीं तू कहीं हार के…" (Imtihaan, 1974)
With this spirit, we now reach the final phases of Section 67, where the law gently steps back after stepping in-showing us that true strength is not just about wielding power, but also about knowing when and how to withdraw it gracefully.
Provisional Release as the Law's First Act of Reassurance - Section 67(6) read with Rule 140
Section 67(6) marks a thoughtful pause in GST enforcement, showing care to prevent investigations from causing unnecessary hardship. While seizing goods under Section 67(2) might sometimes be necessary to protect revenue or gather evidence, lawmakers recognised that detaining goods indefinitely could harm businesses even before any liability is decided. That's why Section 67(6) provides that seized goods should be temporarily released by either providing a bond with the required security or paying the relevant tax, interest, and penalties. This approach strikes a healthy balance-enforcement is essential, but it should not strangulate business activities.
Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017, makes this legal right operational by outlining how and under what conditions goods can be provisionally released. Its sub-rules are best understood when read together, step by step.
Provisional Release of Seized Goods through Bond and Security - Rule 140(1)
Rule 140(1) guides the primary process for temporarily releasing goods seized under Section 67(2). It explains that these goods can be released if a bond in FORM GST INS-04 is signed for the value of the goods, along with a security, usually a bank guarantee, covering the applicable tax, interest, and penalty payable. This approach helps the taxpayer get back the goods and continue their business while ensuring the revenue's interests are protected.
The explanation appended to Rule 140(1) does not concern valuation or the determination of the value of goods. Its scope is confined to clarifying the expression "applicable tax" for the purposes of the Rules 139 to 141. It expressly provides that applicable tax shall include Central tax and State tax, or Central tax and Union Territory tax, as the case may be, along with the cess payable under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. This clarification ensures uniformity in the computation of tax components when executing bonds, furnishing security, or effecting the provisional release of goods. It prevents the fragmented or selective inclusion of tax elements during enforcement proceedings.
रुकना ज़रूरी था सच जानने के लिए,मगर चलना भी उतना ही ज़रूरी है व्यापार के लिए।"
This couplet reinforces that provisional release is not indulgence, but balance.
Consequence of Non-Production of Provisionally Released Goods - Rule 140(2)
It provides the statutory consequence where a person, to whom goods have been provisionally released under Rule 140(1), fails to produce such goods at the date, time and place indicated by the proper officer. In such a situation, the rule authorises encashment of the security furnished at the time of provisional release and permits its adjustment against the tax, interest, penalty and fine, if any, payable in respect of the goods. The provision thus ensures that provisional release does not dilute enforcement and that financial security effectively substitutes physical custody until adjudication is completed.
When Silence of the Law Compels Restoration - Section 67(7)
Section 67(7) quietly but effectively limits the period during which goods can be seized under GST. It balances the need for swift action with fairness, ensuring that seized goods are not left unaddressed for more than 6 months. This way, the law supports thorough investigation without keeping the situation in limbo longer than necessary.
The six-month period specified in Section 67(7) is not just a procedural step; it's an essential safeguard against administrative delays. While the proviso to Section 67(7) allows for an extension of up to six months, such extensions are granted only when there are a valid reason and proper documentation, ensuring that continued retention is based on necessity and accountability rather than convenience. The core idea is simple but meaningful: seizure is justified only when followed by appropriate action. If the department chooses not to act within the 12-month time frame [including a six-month extension], the authority to retain the goods expires, and returning them becomes necessary. This approach keeps GST enforcement fair, purposeful, and timely, preventing seizures from becoming an unnecessary burden on businesses without proper progress.
"जहाँ क़दम आगे न बढ़ें क़ानून के,वहाँ लौट आना भी इंसाफ़ ही होता है।"
It captures the philosophy that the State's silence cannot burden the citizen.
Disposal of Perishable or Hazardous Goods - Section 67(8) read with Rule 141
Section 67(8) highlights a crucial practical reality: sometimes, enforcement can't wait for all legal procedures to finish. Perishable or hazardous goods require prompt action because they may spoil, lose value, or pose health and safety risks if left unattended for too long. That's why the legislature has given the proper officer the authority to dispose of these goods promptly, even before the legal process is complete. It's important to note that this power is not about punishment; it's about prevention. Its goal is to protect the value of the goods and serve the public interest, ensuring fairness for the taxpayer as well. Rule 141 of the CGST Rules, 2017, clearly details how this disposal should be carried out and how the proceeds should be managed.
Power to release the perishable/hazardous seized goods or things consequent upon proof of payment - Rule 141(1)
Where the goods or things seized are of perishable or hazardous nature, and if the taxable person pays an amount equivalent to the market price of such goods or things or the amount of tax, interest and penalty that is or may become payable by the taxable person, whichever is lower, such goods or things shall be released forthwith, by an order in FORM GST INS-05, on proof of payment.
Power to dispose of perishable/hazardous seized goods or things - Rule 141(2)
If the taxable person doesn't pay the amount for the seized goods or items that are perishable or hazardous, the proper officer ["Commissioner" for 01.07.2017 to 27.03.2020] has the authority to dispose of these goods. The proceeds from their sale will then be used to settle any taxes, interest, penalties, or other dues related to those goods.
This approach shows the law's understanding of real-world needs. Holding onto perishable items to finish formal procedures might result in the goods spoiling or becoming unusable, making the process futile. Allowing early disposal helps keep enforcement effective and meaningful, preventing waste, spoilage, and unnecessary disputes over damaged goods. While this power is at the officer's discretion, it must be used wisely, considering the specific type of goods and the context, rather than as a simple administrative shortcut.
The Larger Message of Section 67(8) read with Rule 141
When you look at Section 67(8), Rule 141(1), and Rule 141(2), they reveal the GST law in a very practical and compassionate way. They remind us that sometimes-true justice is about knowing when to hold on and when to let go, ensuring that authority is exercised with flexibility, depending on the situation, rather than by strict rules. The law here values preserving value over mere physical possession, emphasising fairness instead of rigid procedures. This clear structure also gives businesses confidence that, even if they need to dispose of goods early, their financial rights remain safe and enforceable.
"जो सँभाला न जा सके वक़्त की धूप में,उसे बचा लेना ही सबसे बड़ी समझदारी है।"
A reminder that preservation of value is wiser than rigid possession.
Preparing an inventory of seized goods - Section 67(9)
Section 67(9) mandates the preparation of an inventory where goods specified by the Government under Section 67(8) are seized during inspection, search or seizure proceedings. The provision requires the proper officer, or an officer authorised by him, to prepare an inventory of such confiscated goods in the prescribed manner. This statutory requirement ensures transparency and accuracy before any further action, such as speedy disposal, is undertaken. The inventory thus serves as a procedural safeguard, preserving evidentiary integrity and protecting the interests of both the revenue and the taxable person.
"क़ानून जब क़ानून से जुड़ता है,तब ताक़त नहीं-न्याय बोलता है।"
Application of CrPC Safeguards to GST Search and Seizure -Section 67(10)
Section 67(10) statutorily applies the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure to proceedings conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act. It further provides that for the purposes of Section 165(5) of the CrPC, the expression 'Magistrate' shall be substituted with 'Commissioner'. Consequently, copies of records prepared during the search are required to be forthwith forwarded to the jurisdictional Commissioner, and the owner or occupier of the searched premises is entitled, on application, to receive a copy thereof free of cost. The provision thus embeds procedural transparency and oversight into GST search operations.
Although Section 67(10) of the CGST Act refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the said Code has since been repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with effect from 1 July 2024. Accordingly, by virtue of settled principles of statutory interpretation and the General Clauses Act, references to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Section 67(10) are to be read as references to the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Seizure and Retention of Accounts and Documents for Prosecution - Section 67(11)
Section 67(11) empowers the proper officer to seize accounts, registers or documents produced before him where he has reasons to believe that a person has evaded or is attempting to evade payment of tax. Such a seizure, however, can be effected only after the reasons are recorded in writing and are linked explicitly to proceedings for prosecution. The officer is further required to issue a receipt for the documents seized and is entitled to retain them only for such period as is necessary in connection with proceedings under the CGST Act or the Rules made thereunder relating to prosecution. The provision thus places strict procedural and temporal limits on the seizure of business records.
Test Purchase for Verification of Tax Invoicing - Section 67(12)
Section 67(12) authorises the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him to cause the purchase of goods or services or both from a taxable person for the limited purpose of verifying whether tax invoices or bills of supply are being issued in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act. Upon completion of such verification, where the goods so purchased are returned, the taxable person is required to refund the amount paid and cancel the corresponding tax invoice or bill of supply. In the case of intangible services that cannot be returned, no refund is an issue. The provision thus operates as a non-intrusive compliance verification mechanism rather than a coercive enforcement tool.
Closing Perspective - When Authority Walks with Accountability
As this concluding part on Inspection, Search and Seizure comes to an end, Section 67 reveals itself as a finely layered framework where authority is continuously moderated by safeguards at every stage. The law does not treat seizure as an end in itself. Section 67(6) permits the provisional release of seized goods, documents, or books on bond or security, recognising that an investigation cannot be allowed to paralyse business indefinitely. Section 67(7) carries this thought forward by mandating the return of documents not relied upon for proceedings, reaffirming that retention must be need-based, not habitual. The statute then addresses practical realities through Section 67(8), enabling the speedy disposal of notified goods, but only after ensuring transparency by requiring the preparation of an inventory under Section 67(9). Section 67(10) consciously subjects GST search operations to the discipline of criminal procedural law, ensuring oversight, documentation and accountability. When the law approaches the threshold of prosecution, Section 67(11) further tightens control by permitting the seizure of accounts and records only for recorded reasons and only for such period as is necessary for prosecution-related proceedings. Finally, Section 67(12) reflects the most restrained face of enforcement, allowing verification of invoicing discipline through test purchase rather than intrusion. Read together with Rules 139 to 141, the scheme of Section 67 conveys a clear legislative philosophy - that enforcement is meant to regulate conduct, not to suffocate commerce; to secure revenue, not to undermine trust. Under GST, power is exercised with purpose, liberty is curtailed only with reason, and compliance is ultimately sustained not by fear, but by fairness.
कानून जब संयम की भाषा बोलने लगे,तो अधिकार भी न्याय का रूप ले लेते हैं।जहाँ शक्ति पर मर्यादा की मुहर हो,वहीं व्यवस्था विश्वास में बदल जाती है।
CAclubindia
