Return and copying are different routes
CGST section 67(3) requires the specified documents, books or things not relied upon for issue of a notice to be returned within a period not exceeding thirty days of that notice's issue. Section 67(5) separately gives the person from whose custody documents were seized a supervised copying or extract right, subject to the stated investigation-prejudice exception. Do not conflate the return clock with unrestricted access or assume all records must be returned thirty days after seizure.
Read the applicable text: CBIC: CGST Act, section 67(2) proviso, (3) and (5).
Identify the actual record population
Build an item-level inventory from seizure and production records. Identify originals, copies, books, electronic media and other things as the actual record describes them. Preserve who supplied each item and from whose custody documents were seized. Subsection (3) covers the specified seized items and other produced documents, books or things within its terms; subsection (5)'s claimant and document wording should be assessed separately rather than assumed identical.
Map reliance to the notice
Record the notice's issue date and the items actually relied upon for issuing it. Match annexures and references to the inventory, and seek clarification where reliance status is genuinely unclear. A record's appearance in an officer's custody list is not itself proof that it was relied upon for the notice. Conversely, an internally prepared non-relied list should not be treated as an official determination without examining the notice and actual record.
Compute the right clock
Section 67(3)'s trigger is issue of the relevant notice, not its later service date, the original seizure date or the date of an internal reminder. Keep these dates separately. The Act also limits retention under the relevant subsection (2) proviso to what is necessary for examination and inquiry or proceedings. Do not import the separate seized-goods time provisions into a document-return schedule or invent an automatic extension for a particular record.
Request copies with precise safeguards
For seized documents within subsection (5), identify the needed documents or extracts, claimant's custody connection and proposed copying arrangements. Copies or extracts are made in the presence of an authorised officer at the place and time that officer indicates. Subsection (5) concerns seized documents; it does not create an identical copying entitlement for every other thing in custody. The exception concerns the proper officer's opinion that copying or extracts may prejudicially affect investigation. A request is not permission for unsupervised removal or alteration of originals; preserve the actual arrangement and any refusal or restriction.
Prove what was actually returned or copied
Record item identifiers, pages or files, date, recipient and condition. Keep return acknowledgements and copy indexes with the original inventory. Copy access does not necessarily establish return of originals, and a return receipt for some items does not close the entire population. Where compliance is disputed, make a supported request identifying the statutory route and missing items and assess available remedies on the actual record. This guide does not decide whether the underlying search or notice is valid.
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts are fictional. Calculations illustrate the stated assumptions, not a predetermined legal outcome.
Illustrative example 1: Issue date drives the model
Assume a notice is issued on 1 June 2026 and, for this illustrative computation, that date is excluded. Thirty calendar days reach 1 July 2026. Service on 5 June is four days later, but does not replace the statutory issue-date trigger in subsection (3).
Illustrative example 2: Relied and non-relied populations
An inventory contains 120 identified records; the reviewed notice establishes reliance on 45. Seventy-five remain in the candidate non-relied population, subject to confirming the actual scope and facts. Do not label all 120 returnable under this particular test merely because some are non-relied.
Illustrative example 3: Partial return
Assume 75 items have been established as within the non-relied return population and 60 are actually returned. Fifteen remain outstanding, or 20% of that population. A return acknowledgement for the 60 cannot be described as full return.
Illustrative example 4: Pages requested versus supplied
A supervised copy request identifies 300 pages, while the supplied set contains 260 matched pages. Forty pages need reconciliation. File count alone would not reveal the missing page population.
Illustrative example 5: Copying and return differ
Twenty originals remain in custody. Copies of 18 have been supplied. The copied-document gap is 2, but the original-return population remains 20 unless original handover evidence establishes otherwise. Do not subtract copies from the count of original documents held.
Illustrative example 6: Avoid duplicate inventory entries
The combined records identify 50 unique books. A later production index repeats references to 10 of those books; adding those references again creates an apparent total of 60. Reconcile unique identifiers to the actual 50-book population before preparing a return request.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Collect source inventories | Seizure and production records with acknowledgements. |
| 2 | Identify each item | Original or copy, description and unique reference. |
| 3 | Record custody and producer | Relevant person for each statutory route. |
| 4 | Capture the notice | Full text, annexures and issue date. |
| 5 | Map reliance | Item-level linkage to notice references and unresolved status. |
| 6 | Compute the return schedule | Section 67(3) population and issue-based date working. |
| 7 | Prepare copy requests | Specific documents or extracts and subsection (5) basis. |
| 8 | Record supervised arrangements | Officer-indicated place, time and any stated restriction. |
| 9 | Verify handovers | Actual originals returned and copies supplied separately. |
| 10 | Close outstanding items | Missing records, correspondence and remedy assessment. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Is the thirty-day return clock always measured from seizure?
No. Subsection (3) refers to issue of the relevant notice.
2. Does later service replace the issue date?
Not in the wording of that trigger. Preserve both dates separately.
3. Must every seized record be returned under this exact test?
The provision concerns the specified records not relied upon for issuing the notice.
4. Can produced records be relevant too?
Yes. Subsection (3) also addresses other produced documents, books or things within its terms.
5. Does being listed in an inventory prove notice reliance?
No. Map actual notice references and evidence.
6. Can unclear reliance be ignored?
Seek clarification and document the unresolved status rather than making an unsupported categorical assertion.
7. What does subsection (5) permit?
Copies or extracts of the relevant seized documents under its stated supervised arrangements.
8. Who is the specified claimant for that copying right?
The person from whose custody the documents were seized under subsection (2).
9. Can the claimant choose unsupervised removal?
That does not follow from subsection (5). The officer indicates place and time and an authorised officer is present.
10. Is there an investigation-prejudice exception?
Yes. The proper officer's opinion specified by subsection (5) can restrict copying or extracts.
11. Does a copy prove the original was returned?
No. Track those events separately.
12. Can page counts be useful?
Yes, alongside document identity and completeness checks.
13. Are document and seized-goods return clocks identical?
No. Do not import a different goods provision into the document working.
14. Should duplicate inventory references be counted twice?
No. Reconcile the same physical or electronic item across source lists.
15. Does this guide validate the original search?
No. The validity of the proceeding is a separate legal question.
16. What demonstrates completion?
Identified items actually returned or copied, with acknowledgements and remaining matters clearly recorded.