Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1367 - HC - GSTIssues 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.
|