9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1367 - HC - GSTSeizure of cash by respondent no. 2 from the residential premises and office of the petitioner - HELD THAT - Reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in M/S K.M. FOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MUKESH KAPOOR AND MUKESH KAPOOR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DGGI HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI ANR. 2024 (2) TMI 762 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein in similar circumstances this Court while interpreting provision of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 has held that cash is clearly excluded from the definition of the term goods and would fall with the definition of money as defined in Section 2 (75) of the Act. This Court has further held that since cash is not goods, it could not have been seized under the provision of the Act, as seizure is limited to the goods liable for confiscation. The ratio of the said judgment squarely applied to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, there is no justification for resumption of cash and its continued retention by the respondents. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and respondents are directed to forfeit/remit the said cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to the petitioner along with interest.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the legality of the seizure of cash by respondent no. 2 from the residential premises and office of the petitioner. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Presence of Counsel in Proceedings Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, raised concerns about his presence not being noticed in previous orders. The court acknowledged his appearance through VC and directed that his presence shall be read in the relevant orders. Issue 2: Unlawful Seizure of Cash The petitioner sought a declaration that the seizure of cash by respondent no. 2 from their residential premises and office was unlawful. A search and seizure operation conducted on the premises resulted in the seizure of significant amounts of cash. Issue 3: Interpretation of Legal Provisions Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted that cash falls under the definition of 'money' and is not considered 'goods' under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. As cash is not subject to seizure under the Act, the court concluded that there was no justification for the continued retention of the seized cash by the respondents. Final Decision: Based on the interpretation of legal provisions and previous judgments, the court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to forfeit/remit the seized cash back to the petitioner along with interest. It was clarified that the respondents could still take lawful actions or institute proceedings under the Act. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
