SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Smurti Waghdhare, daughter of Suhas Waghdhare – Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit NTC House, Mumbai – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 839 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Rastogi a/w Pooja Rastogi, Meenal Songire, Aarya More.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Sangeeta Yadav, Rupesh Dubey & Ashutosh Mishra.

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 months.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 67(2) and 67(7) - Power of inspection, search and seizure - Seizure of cash - Proper officer must have “reason to believe” that goods liable to confiscation or documents, books or things useful or relevant to proceedings under Act are secreted in any place - No reasons recorded in impugned seizure orders - Cash not secreted - No nexus or relevance to proceedings against petitioner shown - Seizure perverse, arbitrary and without authority of law - No notice issued within six months of seizure - Seized cash liable to be returned - Handover of seized cash to another department without authority impermissible. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 15)

(B) “Reason to believe” - Must have rational connection or relevant bearing on formation of belief - Not mere suspicion or pretence - Existence of belief challengeable if no live link with material or mala fide - Sufficiency not justiciable unless extraneous. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, proprietor of GST-registered entity engaged in trading metals and scrap - Searches conducted at principal place of business, another premises, residence and parents’ residence - Cash totalling INR 1 crore seized pursuant to impugned orders - Linked to friend’s alleged fake billing for ITC availment - Later statements by friend and petitioner confirm cash belongs to petitioner, kept for parents’ medical treatment - No incriminating material against petitioner found - Cash handed over to income tax authorities.

Findings of Court:
Impugned seizure orders quashed - Respondents directed to release seized cash with interest to petitioner’s bank account within two weeks.

Issues: Whether seizure of cash justified under Section 67(2); compliance with “reason to believe” and secretion requirements; effect of non-issuance of notice under Section 67(7); validity of handover to another department.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 67(2) mandates recorded “reason to believe” for seizure of relevant secreted items - Absent such satisfaction and nexus, no power to seize cash - Mandatory return under Section 67(7) if no notice within six months - Action fulfilling none of statutory ingredients illegal. Result : Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. searches and seizure of cash from petitioner's premises challenged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. cash not seizable under section 67(2) cgst act. (Para 7)
3. cash as 'thing' linked to fake itc nexus. (Para 8)
4. no 'reason to believe' invalidates cash seizure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. section 67(7) violation mandates return of seized cash. (Para 13 , 14)
6. seizure quashed; cash released with interest. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

1. Rule. By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(a) quashing the Order of Seizure dated 28.06.2023 issued in Form GST INS-02 by Respondent No 3 seizing cash amounting to INR 60 Lakhs from Premises No 19 (Exhibit-D), and Order of Seizure dated 27.06.2023 issued in Form GST INS-02 by Respondent No 2 seizing cash amounting to INR 40 Lakhs from the residence of Petitioner's parents (Exhibit-F), and directing release of the cash to the Petitioner with interest;

(b) directing the Respondents to deposit the seized cash totally amounting to INR 1 Crore in the registry of this Hon'ble Court, and directing the registry to deposit the same in an interest-bearing fixed deposit with a nationalized bank, pending disposal of this petition;

(c) directing Respondent No 1 to furnish a copy of Authorizations for Search issued in Form GST INS-01 in respect of searches conducted at the Petitioner's residence, Premises No 19 and residence of Petitioner's parents, pending disposal of this petition;

(d) granting ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) above, and”

3. The challenge in the present Petition is in respect of two orders of seizure dated 27th June 2023 and 28th June 2023 issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned seizure orders”) inter alia seizing cash amounting to INR 1 crore from premises owned by the Petitioner, i.e., Office No 19, 1st Floor, Laxmi Nivas / Minty House, 2nd Panjrapol Lane, Charni Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 004 ("Premises No 19"), and the residence of Petitioner's parents.

4. Briefly the facts are as follows:-

(i) The Petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. Platinum International and registered under Goods and Services Act (GST Act) bearing Registration Number GSTIN 27AASPW1736 D1ZC and inter-alia engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and scrap.

(ii) On 27th June 2023 and 28th June 2023, searches were conducted by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their team on the basis of authorization issued by Respondent No. 1, at the following places which are owned by the Petitioner, the details of the which are as follows:-

“a. Petitioner's office (registered under GST as her "principal place of business"): Ground Floor, Office No. 1, Agakhan Building, 220/230, Kika Street, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 004 ("Kika Street Office");

b. Another premises owned by the Petitioner (no activities are conducted from this place, no entity maintains its place of business at this place): Office No 19, 1st Floor, Laxmi Nivas / Minty House, 2nd Panjrapol Lane, Charni Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 004 ("Premises No 19");

c. Petitioner's residence (premises owned by Petitioner's father, Mr. Suhas Waghdhare, a senior citizen): Room No. 61, 3rd Floor, Laxmi Nivas / Minty House, 2nd Panjrapol Lane, Charni Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 004.

d. Residence of the Petitioner's parents, both of whom are senior citizens (premises owned by the Petitioner): B-1B, Ground floor, 88, Jitekarwadi (New), Dr. Babasaheb Jaykar Marg, Girgaon, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 002.”

(iii) Pursuant to the above searches conducted on 27th June 2023 and 28th June 2023, several items owned by the Petitioner were seized from Premises No. 19 and residence of the Petitioner’s parents by Respondent No. 2 and 3 and their team.

(iv) Similarly, search and seizure proceedings were conducted by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top