9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,552/-; iii) M/s. Apparent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner No. 2 in W.P. (C) No. 363/2024) - Rs. 85,41,191/-; iv) Ms. Saroj Kapoor (Petitioner No. 3 in W.P. (C) No. 363/2024) - Rs. 7,10,000/-. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The undisputed facts are that a search was carried out by the Officers of the respondents on 04.10.2021 at the business premises belonging to Mr. Mukesh Kapoor, who is Director of M/s. K.M. Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Apparent Marketing Pvt. Ltd., in terms of "Authorization for Search" dated 03.10.2021. During the course of search, various documents/records viz. balance sheets, bilty books, purchase invoices, e-way bills, GST sales ledger etc., belonging to said companies were resumed vide Panchnama dated 04.10.2021. 3. Vide another "Authorization for Search" dated 03.10.2021, the Officers of respondents took search of the premises viz. C-3, Court Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, belonging to Mukesh Kapoor. As the said premises was under renovation, nothing incriminating was found. 4. Thereafter, the officers of the respondents conducted search of another premises viz. C-5, Court Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, from where, they resumed various rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67 (2) of the CGST Act to seize the goods can be exercised only if the goods are liable for confiscation. 10. It is also argued that the currency is excluded from the definition of goods and thus cannot be seized as goods. It is further submitted that currency is not useful or relevant for conducting any proceedings and therefore the same cannot be seized in the exercise of powers under Section 67 (2) of the CGST Act. 11. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that petitioner Mukesh Kapoor could not offer any valid explanation of the source of the cash and therefore the Officers of respondents were under bona fide belief that the cash was the result of clandestine and illegal activities of the petitioners contrary to the provisions of CGST Act 2017 and this is why, the seizure was effected. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Kanishka Matta Vs. UOI W.P. (C) No. 8204/2020, decided on 26.08.2020, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court interpreted the word "things" appearing in Section 67 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 to include the money. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any other documents, books or things produced by a taxable person or any other person, which have not been relied upon for the issue of notice under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be returned to such person within a period not exceeding thirty days of the issue of the said notice. (4) The officer authorised under sub-section (2) shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied. (5) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (2) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorised officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation. (6) The goods so seized under sub-section (2) shall be released, on a provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e person or any person in charge of the business premises shall refund the amount so paid towards the goods after cancelling any tax invoice or bill of supply issued earlier." 14. It is clear from the reading of the above Section that a proper Officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, is empowered to authorize any person of the Central Tax to inspect any place of business of a taxable person or persons engaged in the business of transporting or storing of goods under Sub section (1) of Section 67 of the Act. Such inspection can be authorized only if the proper Officer has the reasons to believe that the taxable person (i) has either suppressed any transaction relating to the supply of goods or services or both or suppressed the stock of the goods in hand, or has claimed Input Tax Credit in excess of his entitlement or has otherwise contravened any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder to evade payment of tax. Power of inspection under sub section (1) of Section 67 of the Act is conferred to unearth any evasion of tax or any attempt to evade tax and this provision is not meant for recovery of tax or for securing the same. 15. Sub Section (2) of Section 67 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee holding that the power of any authority to seize any "thing" while functioning under the provisions of a taxing statute must be guided and informed in its exercise by the object of the statute concerned. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "While it may be a fact that Section 67 (2) of the CGST Act authorizes the seizure of things, including cash in appropriate cases, we do not think that the present is a case that called for a seizure of the cash found in the premises of the appellants at the time of the search. The power of any authority to seize any 'thing' while functioning under the provisions of a taxing statute must be guided and informed in its exercise by the object of the statute concerned. In an investigation aimed at detecting tax evasion under the GST Act, we fail to see how cash can be seized especially when it is the admitted case that the cash did not form part of the stock in trade of the appellant's business. It is evident from the order of the Intelligence Officer that the cash that was seized from the premises of the appellants was not the stock in trade of the quarry business that was conducted by the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation or records, which the proper officer has reason to believe is useful for or relevant to the proceedings under the Act. The context in which the word 'things' is used makes it amply clear that, notwithstanding, the wide definition of the term 'things', the same is required to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words. It is apparent that the legislative intent in using a word of wide import is to include all possible articles that would provide relevant information, records, and material which may be useful for or relevant to proceedings under the Act. 47. We are unable to accept that the word 'things' must be read expansively to include any and every thing notwithstanding that the same may not yield and / or provide any material useful or relevant to any proceedings under the Act as contended on behalf of the Revenue. It is necessary to bear in mind that power of search and seizure is a drastic power; it is invasive of the rights of a taxpayer and his private space. Conferring of unguided or unbridled power of this nature would fall foul of the constitutional guarantees. It necessarily follows that such power must be read as circumscribed by the guidelines that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
