Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST

Last updated: 30 March 2024

Court :
Delhi High Court

Brief :
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024] allowed the writ petition and directed the Revenue Department to remit the cash seized along with interest thereby holding that, the Revenue Department is not empowered to seize cash under applicable laws of GST.

Citation :
W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024] allowed the writ petition and directed the Revenue Department to remit the cash seized along with interest thereby holding that, the Revenue Department is not empowered to seize cash under applicable laws of GST.

Facts

Search and Seizure proceedings were carried out at the premises of Jagdish Bansal ("the Petitioner") and cash was seized from the premises of the Petitioner by the Revenue Department ("the Respondent").

Aggrieved by the action of the Respondent, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court wherein the Petitioner sought a declaration that the seizure of cash from the premises of the Petitioner is unlawful.

Issue

Whether Revenue Department is empowered to seize Cash under GST?

Held

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of W.P. (C) NO. 16677 OF 2023 held as under:

Relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.M Food Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor Vs Director General DGGI Headquarters [W.P. (C) 328/2024 dated February 13, 2024], while interpreting the provision of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), noted that, cash would not fall within the purview of definition of goods and would fall within the purview of money as defined under Section 2(75) of the CGST Act.
Further Noted that, cash would not be considered as goods and therefore, cannot be seized.
Opined that, there is no justification in retention of cash by the Respondent.
Held that, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside.
Directed that, the Respondent is required to remit the cash seized along with interest.