2023 (7) TMI 1230 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - authority of respondents to seize currency during search proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the respondents are required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the rules thereunder. Clearly the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner or any of the family members of any of their assets in the proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act, without seizing the same, is illegal. The respondents cannot continue with the possession of the currency collected from the petitioner s residence. This court is informed that respondents had after taking over possession of the currency from the residence of the petitioner proceeded to deposit the same with Canara Bank in a fixed deposit for a term of twelve months. The assumption that the cash recovered from the locked room was in the possession of the petitioner s daughter-in-law (DIL) is ex facie erroneous. It was recovered from a room that was locked and the record shows that Ms (DIL) did not have the keys to that room - the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. To obviate any further controversy in this regard, the petitioner as well Smt. (DIL) shall appear before Respondent No. 3 at the office of Respondent No. 3, on 26.07.2023 at 12 00 noon. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges the removal of a sum of Rs. 19,50,000 during a search under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and seeks directions for refunding the amount.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Removal of Cash during Search
The petitioner, a senior citizen and proprietor of M/s Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan, had cash amount seized during a search at her residence. The respondents seized the cash but did not officially record the seizure. The court found that the respondents had no authority to dispossess assets without seizure, deeming their actions illegal.

Issue 2: Possession of Seized Cash
The respondents claimed to have placed the seized cash in a fixed deposit without initiating any proceedings for its return. However, it was found that the assumption that the cash belonged to the petitioner's daughter-in-law was erroneous, as it was recovered from a locked room where she did not have access. The court directed the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner and instructed both the petitioner and her daughter-in-law to appear before the respondent for further proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the refund of the seized amount to the petitioner, emphasizing the illegality of the respondents' actions in dispossessing assets without proper seizure procedures. Additionally, instructions were given for the transfer of the fixed deposit proceeds to the petitioner's account if the daughter-in-law does not dispute the ownership of the money. The petition was disposed of accordingly.