|
2023-TIOL-124-HC-DEL-GST
Arvind Goyal CA Vs UoI
GST - A search operation was conducted at the residence of the petitioners on 04.12.2020, by certain officers of GST, AE, Delhi, West - During the course of the search, the officers found cash aggregating to Rs. 1,22,87,000/- and took possession of the said cash - Admittedly, no seizure memo was drawn in respect of the said cash - However, a panchanama was drawn up, which indicates that the officers took possession of certain items including cash aggregating to Rs. 18,87,000/- from the room of petitioner no.1 and cash amounting to Rs. 1,04,00,000/- from the room of petitioner no.2 - The said officers also took possession of mobile phones as well as a laptop belonging to petitioner no.1 - Petitioner has challenged the said search operation as unlawful inasmuch as it is contended that the officers could have no reason to believe that any goods liable for confiscation were lying in the premises of the petitioners; that the officers had no reason to believe that any records relevant to the proceedings would be available in the premises; that the action of the officers of taking possession of cash is without authority of law - Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that a letter dated 04.12.2020 was received by CGST Delhi East Commissionerate Office from CGST Bhopal Commissionerate and the said search operations were pursuant to the same; that the officers had merely "resumed" cash as is noted in the panchnama and therefore, the same cannot be considered as seizure.
Held: One of the principal questions that requires to be addressed is whether cash can be seized by the officers under Section 67(2) of the GST Act - A plain reading of Section 67(2) of the GST Act indicates that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things, which may be "useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act" - Clearly, cash does not fall within the definition of goods and, prima facie , it is difficult to accept that cash could be termed as a 'thing' useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act - Counsel for respondent is unable to point out any provision in the GST Act that entitles any officer of GST to merely "resume" assets - Clearly, the petitioners had not handed over the cash to the concerned officers voluntarily - Undisputedly, the action taken by the officers was a coercive action - Bench finds no provision in the GST Act that could support an action of forcibly taking over possession of currency from the premises of any person, without effecting the same - GST officers have dispossessed the petitioners of the currency found in their premises during search operations conducted under Section 67(2) of the GST Act but have not seized the currency under the said provision - Insofar as WhatsApp chats between petitioners and officers are concerned, which are rather cryptic, Court considers it apposite to give notice to the concerned officers, Mr. Vinod Prakash Sharma, Superintendent and Mr. Sandeep Dhama , and to hear them before making any adverse comments - Insofar as the action of the officers of dispossessing the petitioners of their currency is concerned; it is clear that the said action of taking away currency was illegal and without any authority of law - The amount of Rs. 18,87,000/- has already been returned to petitioner no.1 - The respondents are directed to forthwith return the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the petitioners - The bank guarantee furnished by petitioner no.1 for release of currency is directed to be released forthwith - Officers named are directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing on 20.02.2023: High Court [para 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22]
- Interim order passed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-123-HC-AHM-GST
Orson Holdings Company Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Goods/vehicle have been detained at 06.05 pm at Amirgadh on 27.09.2018, after about expiry of 48 hours of the e-way bill - From the facts, which are robust in nature, it can be gathered that there does not appear to be any ill-intent on the part of the petitioner to use the expired e-Way bill - The company is situated at Howrah, West Bengal and the place of delivery was Jamnagar, Gujarat and in transit, this e-Way bill has expired - Case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed - Impugned order demanding a sum of Rs.63,40,000/- is quashed and set aside - Order of detention as well as further notice issued u/s 129(3) in form GST MOV-07 is also quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits - Tax and penalty have been recovered - The penalty being an additional amount in wake of the quashment, the same is to be refunded to the petitioner, with interest, within eight weeks: High Court [para 7 to 11]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
|
|
