Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Boddu Madhavi Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for release of seized cash. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner claims the cash is for wedding expenses. (Para 3) |
| 3. counterarguments from respondents regarding cash seizure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court identifies the key issues for consideration. (Para 7) |
| 5. court’s analysis of adherence to s.o.p. during seizure. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's pre-existing judgments supporting petitioners revealed. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. court clarifies jurisdiction issues regarding the income tax department. (Para 16) |
| 8. court declares actions by respondents illegal. (Para 17) |
| 9. final order regarding cash release and interest provisions. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
To issue a writ, order or direction, or writ, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring:
(i) The action of respondent No.5 in seizing the cash amounting to Rs.15,80,000/- belonging to the petitioner No.1 and further handing it over to the Income Tax Department, more particularly the respondent No.2, without any authority;
(ii) The action of respondent No.4 in not releasing the cash amounting Rs.15,80,000/- be
Seizure of cash without following prescribed procedures is illegal, and transfer to the Income Tax Department without an FIR is unauthorized.
Seizure of goods must adhere to procedural safeguards unless linked to electoral misconduct; ownership must be substantively established before neutral parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with statutory procedures, particularly in the context of the seizure of property under Section 102 of the Criminal ....
Seizure of cash under CGST Section 67(2) invalid absent recorded 'reason to believe' of secretion and relevance to proceedings; automatic return mandated under Section 67(7) if no notice within six m....
The main legal point established is that cash is excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the CGST Act and cannot be seized under Section 67 as such. The court emphasized the need for the seizur....
Point of Law : If there is no valid order of assessment and no demand for income tax, Revenue cannot indirectly keep money on plea that there will be a demand, and, money should be allowed to be kept....
The court affirmed that a taxpayer's voluntary admission of dues and conditions related to cash seizure supersedes claims of coercion, leading to dismissal of the petition.
Section 74(6) which states that the proper officer, on receipt of such information from the assessee, shall not serve any notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act to such assessee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
