Point of Law: 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.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

CM 41094/2021(exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 13034/2021

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia challenging the seizure of cash amounting to Rs.65 lakhs (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs only) from the residential premises of the Director of the petitioner on 04.03.2021. The petitioner further challenges the letter dated 24.03.2021 issued by the respondent no.1 whereby the bank was directed to release the said amount of Rs.65 lakhs to the petitioner, however, only for payment of Government dues.

The petitioner further claims that a sum of Rs.94,65,316/- (Rupees Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Sixteen Only) deposited by it with the respondents has been erroneously recovered by the respondents from the petitioner without proper adjudication. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondent to determine the tax, interest or penalty due from the petitioner and appropriate the said amount of Rs.94,65,316/- paid by the petitioner against the amount so found due.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.03.2021, the respondents carried out a search at the premises of the petitioner company located at D-5A/1, Ground Floor, Shiv Puri Extension, Chander Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi 110051. The respondents further carried out a search at the registered office premises of the petitioner company and sealed the said premises on the basis that the said address had not been disclosed in the Form GST Reg.-06. Stock lying in the said premises was also seized by the respondents.

3. The petitioner further claims that the respondent no.2 also carried out a search at the residential premises of the Director of the petitioner company situated at Jasola, New Delhi and during the search, seized an amount of Rs.65 lakh in cash.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Panchnama for the said search and seizure at the residential premises of the Director of the petitioner company was not supplied to either the petitioner or its Director. She further submits that under the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’), the respondent no.3 had no authority to seize cash.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 04.03.2021, the respondents directed Mr.Puneet Bhudhiraja, the Director of the petitioner company to accompany the search party to respondent’s office at CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi without issuing any summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. Mr. Budhiraja was illegally detained overnight in the office without any lawful justification and was released from unlawful custody only in the afternoon of 05.03.2021. She submits that due to coercive action of the respondents, an amount of Rs.33,99,236/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Six Only) was deposited by the petitioner with the respondents on 09.03.2021.

6. The petitioner thereafter sought release of the cash amount illegally seized from the petitioner, however, the respondent no.1 vide impugned letter dated 24.03.2021 directed the release of the amount only for payment of Government dues. She submits that the said condition is extraneous to the provisions of the CGST Act and cannot be sustained.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs.60,66,082/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Eighty Two Only) with the respondents on 25.03.2021 and in spite of such deposit, stock seized from the premises of the petitioner was released by the respondents only on 07.05.2021.

8. She submits that by a letter dated 17.09.2021, the petitioner filed a detailed representation with the respondent no.1 to demonstrate that excess taxes had been recovered from the petitioner without following due process of law, however, till date neither any notice has been issued to the petit