Seizure & Prohibition Orders Fall Once GST Assessment Quashed on Limitation | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 18 March, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Goal Closures vs. State Tax Officer (Int)-1 - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 226 (Madras)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- C. Saravanan, J.
-
G. Natarajan for the Petitioner.
-
C. Harsharaj, Special Government Pleader for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered person, was subjected to inspection and search by the department, pursuant to which goods were placed under Prohibition Order in Form GST INS-03 and Seizure Order in Form GST INS-02. A show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 was thereafter issued alleging belated availment of input tax credit (ITC) under section 16(4) of the CGST Act, which culminated in an assessment order passed in Form GST DRC-07. The said assessment order was subsequently quashed in separate writ proceedings on the ground of limitation. It was also confirmed that no fresh or de novo proceedings had been initiated thereafter and that none of the notices proposed confiscation of the seized goods under section 67(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the continued operation of the Prohibition and Seizure Orders. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the continuance of the Prohibition Order in Form GST INS-03 and Seizure Order in Form GST INS-02 could not be sustained once the assessment order had been quashed and no fresh proceedings proposing confiscation had been initiated. The Court observed that in the absence of any proposal for confiscation as contemplated under section 67(2) of the CGST Act, the very basis for continuation of such restrictive measures ceased to exist. It further held that mere pendency of remand proceedings, without any substantive action for confiscation, could not justify continuation of seizure or prohibition. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the impugned Prohibition and Seizure Orders were unwarranted and liable to be set aside.
List of Cases Referred to
- Global Closures v. State Tax Officer [W.P. No. 8284 of 2025, dated 12-3-2025] (para 5).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
