1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

16(a) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the order of prohibition passed by respondent no.2 dated 04/07/2019 at Annexure-B of this petition.

(b) pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay further proceeding issued by respondent no.2 on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(c) to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of the justice and the petitioner.

2. Mr. Abhishekkumar Malvi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant has not been able to join the video conference. Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents has given us more than a fair idea as regards the subject matter of this writ-application.

3. Mr. Dave first invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order of prohibition passed by the State Tax Officer4, Unit18, Ahmedabad in Form GST INS-03 in exercise of power under Subsection (2) of Section67 of the GST Act, 2017. This order of prohibition is dated 4th July 2019. 4. Section-67 of the Act is with respect to inspection, search, seizure and arrest. It falls within Chapter-XIV of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section-67 reads thus:

Section 67 Power of inspection, search and seizure.

(1) XXX

(2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under subsection (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things:

Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer:

Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under this Act.

5. Mr. Dave, thereafter, invited the attention of this Court to Sub-section (7) of Section67, which reads thus:-

67(7) – Where any goods are seized under subsection (2) and no notice in respect thereof is given within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:

Provided that the period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the proper officer for a further period not exceeding six months.

6. The plain reading of Sub-section(7) of Section67 referred to above would indicate that from the date of seizure under Subsection (2) if notice is issued within six months thereof, the seized properties will have to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. There is a proviso for the purpose of extending the said period on sufficient cause. Mr. Dave, the learned AGP upon instructions from the concerned department makes a statement that no notice has been issued till this date as contemplated under Sub-section (7) of Section 67 of the Act. There has been no extension also of the time period as provided under the proviso.

7. In view of the above, it can be said that the impugned order outlive its life. The same is hereby quashed and set aside. The articles seized shall now be returned to the writ-applicant, if not returned till this date. The writ-application is disposed of accordingly.