9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUSTICE T. R. RAVI FOR THE PETITIONER : ADVS.SRI HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI R.SREEJITH SMT.K.KRISHNA FOR THE RESPONDENT : DR. THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVT.PLEADER JUDGMENT T. R. RAVI , J. The petitioner is running an industrial unit that is involved in the manufacture and sale of Idly/Dosa batter, Parotta (half-cooked), Chappathi, etc. It is stated that the Unit has been funct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.11,71,900/- was seized, but the same had not been noted in the order of seizure. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to seize cash by invoking the power available under Section 67 of the CGST Act. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 4th respondent for the return of the seized cash as early as on 22.06.2022. When no action was fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India & Ors. ([2021] 89 GSTR 56 (MP)), BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd V. Union of India and Others ([2021] 89 GSTR 73 (Bom)) and the decision of Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.12499/2021 in support of the contention that cash can also be seized under Section 67 of the CGST Act. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an investigation aimed and detecting tax evasion under the CGST Act, the Court fails to see how cash can be seized, especially when it is an admitted case that the cash did not form part of the stock-in-trade of the appellant's business. In the said case, the appellant was involved in the business of quarry. The Court also considered the findings of the Intelligence Officer in the said case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house. An additional fact is that the authorities had also seized pay-in-slips which would show that the cash was intended to be deposited in the Bank. As observed by the Division Bench, the cash being not a stock-in-trade of the petitioners, was not a thing that ought to have been seized. The seizure was one year back, and there is no reason to retain it any further. 5. In the above circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
