9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is difficult to accept that cash could be termed as a thing useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section 67(2) of the GST Act also provides that the books or things so seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act. 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. There are 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. The powers of search and seizure are draconian p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocates. ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: (a) direct the Respondents to deposit balance sum of Rs.1,04,00,000/- taken away on 04.12.2020 during search, from the Petitioner No.2 premises and possession, and be kept in the interest-bearing fixed deposit in the name of Registrar General of this Hon ble Court during the pendency of present writ petition. 2. The undisputed facts are that a search operation was conducted at the residence of the petitioners on 04.12.2020, by certain officers of GST, AE, Delhi, West under Section 67(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the GST Act ). During the course of the search, the officers found cash aggregating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which belongs to one Sh. Rakesh Pal and was located at Shop No.2, Kolar Road, Bhopal. He was ostensibly engaged in the trading of betel nuts, but the enquiry revealed that such trading was without actual movement of goods. It was also revealed that there was a saree shop at the said premises operating under the name of Taksh Sarees . And, no concern with the name Samriddhi Enterprises was operating from the said address. 7. Apparently, Sh. Rakesh Pal had made a statement that the said concern was opened by petitioner no.1. He also named a few other persons. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not assessees from whom any tax or amount is to be recovered. 9. The laptop and mobile phones, which were taken away by the concerned offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... useful or relevant for proceedings under the GST Act. The second proviso to Section 67(2) of the GST Act also provides that the books or things so seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act. 14. However, there is no occasion for this Court to now examine the aforesaid question as it is the respondents stand that the cash was not seized. It is contended that the seizure memo was not prepared as the officers, who had conducted the search operation, had, in fact, not seized any cash. 15. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the officers had merely resumed cash as is noted in the panchnama and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer to meet in a park. 19. In the given facts, before proceeding further, this 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. 20. 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 ₹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 rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
