Critically evaluate the search and seizure powers under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, in light of due process concerns.

Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 arms tax administration with powers of inspection, search and seizure to protect revenue against suppressed supplies and fake input tax credit [1]. The provision is structurally safeguarded, yet field practice shows due process thinning precisely at the point of enforcement.

Merits: necessity and built-in safeguards

• Threshold of reason: powers activate only where a proper officer records a "reason to believe" of suppressed transactions, excess ITC or contravention to evade tax [1].
• Rank filter: authorisation must come from an officer not below Joint Commissioner, issued through FORM GST INS-01; seizure follows FORM GST INS-02 [1].
• Time-bound custody: seized goods must be released within six months (extendable by six) if no notice is issued — barring indefinite deprivation of property [1].
• CrPC discipline: search and seizure provisions of the CrPC, 1973 apply, importing panchnama and witness requirements [1]; CBIC's Instruction No. 01/2020-21 (GST-Investigation) further mandates recorded justification after lapses were flagged by vigilance authorities [2].

Due process concerns

• Subjectivity: "reason to believe" is recorded internally, rarely disclosed to the taxpayer, leaving scrutiny largely post-facto and judicial.
• Width of coercion: officers may break open premises, almirahs and boxes, and seize documents merely "relevant" to proceedings — a low bar.
• Field-level breakdown: at Sowcarpet, Chennai (July 2026), part of an inspection team could not produce identity cards; nearly 300 traders confined the officials until police intervened [3]. Legitimacy collapses where identification fails.
• Trust deficit: impersonation-based fake raids and harassment complaints deter voluntary compliance among small traders.

Section 67 is a necessary revenue-protection tool, but its worth depends on procedure rather than power. Mandatory identity display, videographed searches, Document Identification Numbers, structured written reasons and time-bound closure of investigations would align enforcement with Article 300A and natural justice — making the taxpayer a partner in compliance rather than a suspect.