9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms. Maninder Kaur and Ms. Oshin Maggu, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC with Mr. V. K. Attri, Adv. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the action of the respondents in removing a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- from her premises during a search conducted under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded over by Respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and thereafter, was placed in a fixed deposit. 5. The Panchnama was drawn up. The Panchnama records that one room was found locked and the petitioner's daughter-in-law, Smt. Seema Gupta, had informed the respondents that she did not have the keys to that room. During the search proceedings, the duplicate keys were made and the door of the room was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said assets. There is no provision under the CGST Act, which empowers the respondents to "resume" or dispossess any person of his assets, without seizing the same. 10. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have any documents to justify the legal possession of the cash amount. And since she was present at the premises during the search proceedings, the respondent had assumed that the cash was in her possession. 13. The assumption that the cash recovered from the locked room was in the possession of Seema Gupta (the petitioner's daughter-in-law) is ex facie erroneous. It was recovered from a room ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
