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
| 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
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....
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.
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.
Search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act requires credible information that justifies belief, and cannot be based on mere suspicion.
A show cause notice issued under the GST Act based on an investigation by an improper officer is invalid and must be set aside.
Seizure under the Income Tax Act should be conducted with due care and caution, and should not be based solely on suspicion. The seizure of goods should be justified and in accordance with the provis....
Seizure of stock-in-trade under the Income Tax Act requires clear evidence of undisclosed income; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.