The CGST Department conducted the investigation, Seizure, and search operations at the residences and offices of Director and MD of Kerala Communications Cable Ltd. a few months back. They reached court with writ appeal and said that their residences and offices were kept under illegal custody and an amount of Rs.1 Crore extorted from them.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal on August 14, 2020, and upheld the inspection, search, and Seizure under section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 
Get to know about GST levy terms on disposal of the company’s capital goods under the CGST Act 2017. Also, we mentioned GST on the disposal of capital assets, if no ITC is claimed on capital goods. Read more, 2017.
Director and MD of Kerala Communications Cable Ltd. are the petitioners in this matter and they are engaged in the business of providing Cable Services as a Multi-Service Operator (MSO) under the Telephone Regulatory of India (TRAI) Regulations. They Allege that illegal proceedings were taken against them under the CGST Act 2017.
In the writ petition, applicants appealed for setting aside Exhibit P2 notice issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO), overrule the search and seizure operation conducted as per CGST Act, a refund of the extorted amount of 1 crore, a declaration that they don’t have to pay GST 
Check out due dates of payment under GST for general and composition taxpayers in India. We have included penalty charges on late payment with interest on the revenue share retained by the LCOs and compensation for the damage to the reputation as well as for mental agony suffered.
The Single judge found the writ petition premature and observed that there is no evidence represented that proves any type of harassment perpetrated on them. The Single judge also said that at this level, it is inappropriate to form an opinion on the allegation raised by the applicants especially when there is no solid proof in favor of the raised allegations.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice T.R. Ravi held that the CGST department’s action under Section 67 was neither improper nor illegal. The bench said that “the actions projected before us, were in any manner proceeded with, in an arbitrary or high-handed fashion. We dismiss the appeal, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs”.
