2021 (6) TMI 472 - HC - GST

Seeking release of seized cash - requirement to issue notice u/s 67(7) of the Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Mr. Sharma has relied upon the definition given in Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 in support of his contention that the expression goods does not include money. List the matter on 19.07.2021.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Seizure of cash without adhering to provisions of law under Section 67(7) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Interpretation of the definition of 'goods' under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, through Mr. Puneet Sharma, raised concerns about the seizure of cash amounting to ?15,92,000 without following the legal provisions. The cash was seized on 23.01.2020, and Mr. Sharma argued that as per Section 67(7) of the CGST Act, 2017, the respondent should have issued a notice regarding the seized cash within six months of the seizure. He also pointed out that the proper officer can extend this time limit on sufficient cause being shown, but not beyond six months. Since more than 12 months had passed since the seizure, Mr. Sharma contended that the revenue should return the seized cash along with interest.

2. Mr. Sharma relied on the definition provided in Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017 to support his argument that 'goods' do not include money. This interpretation is crucial in determining whether the seized cash falls under the definition of 'goods' and is subject to the provisions of the CGST Act. The court took note of this argument and issued a notice to the respondent, represented by Mr. Harpreet Singh, to respond to the petitioner's contentions.

The court allowed certain applications and directed the petitioner to file sworn/notarised/affirmed affidavits within a specified timeframe. The case was listed for further proceedings on a specific date. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal provisions regarding the seizure of assets and the interpretation of key definitions in tax laws. The arguments presented by the petitioner regarding the timeline for issuing notices and the definition of 'goods' under the CGST Act were considered significant in determining the legality of the cash seizure. The court's decision to issue a notice to the respondent indicates a willingness to delve deeper into these legal aspects and ensure a fair resolution based on the applicable laws.