IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
M/s K. M. Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
The Director General Dggi Headquarters, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 328 of 2024 & W.P.(C) 363 of 2024$~23 and 24
Decided On : 13-02-2024
Seizure - Currency - Section 67 of CGST Act 2017 - 67
Fact of the Case:
A search was conducted by the respondents at the business premises of the petitioners, resulting in the seizure of currency. The petitioners sought the return of the seized currency, contending that it was accounted for in their books of accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seizure of cash under Section 67 of the CGST Act was illegal and arbitrary as cash is excluded from the definition of 'goods' and cannot be seized as such. The court also noted that there was no evidence that the seized cash represented the sale proceeds of unaccounted goods.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Officers of the respondents had the power to seize the cash under Section 67 of the CGST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the word 'things' in Section 67(2) of the CGST Act does not include 'money', and therefore, the seizure of cash was illegal and arbitrary. The court also emphasized that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation and that there was no justification for the continued retention of the cash by the respondents.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to remit the proceeds of the fixed deposit (along with interest) to the bank account of the entities/person from whose possession the cash was seized. The court clarified that the respondents were not precluded from taking further action in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Ravinder Dudeja, J.
1. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for issuance of directions declaring resumption of currency as recorded vide Panchnama dated 04.10.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and for further directions to the respondents to return the resumed currency to the petitioners in the following manner:
i) M/s. K.M. Food Infrastructure (Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 328/3024) - Rs. 29,51,257/-;
ii) Mr. Mukesh Kapoor (Petitioner No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 363/2024) - Rs. 68,63,552/-;
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 records/documents, such as purchase/invoices, bank accounts details, sale invoices, directorship details etc. as also electronic devices viz. mobile phones of the Director of the aforesaid companies. They also resumed Indian Currency totalling to Rs. 1,90,66,000/-from the said premises vide Panchnama dated 04.10.2021.
5. Petitioner sent an e-mail dated 05.12.2021 to the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, stating that cash found during the search at Mukesh Kapoor's residence, belongs to Mukesh Kapoor, K.M. Foods Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Apparent Marketing Pvt. Ltd., as per following details:
| S. No | Particulars | Cash in Hand |
| 1) | K M Foods Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. | 29,51,257/- |
| 2) | Apparent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. | 85,41,191/- |
| 3) | Mukesh Kapoor | 68,63,552/- |
| 4) | Saroj Kapoor | 7,10,000/- |
| Total | 1,90,66,000/- |
6. The Officers of the respondents on 01.12.2023, returned the documents and mobile phones seized during the search conducted on 04.10.2021. However, the currency seized was not returned to the petitioners.
7. Respondent No. 1 filed a short reply, stating therein that the cash amount of Rs. 1,90,66,000/- was seized from the residential premises of Mr. Mukesh Kapoor vide Panchnama dated 04.10.2021, as he could not provide any satisfactory reply for the possession of the said amount. It has also been stated that the said amount was deposited in the bank and converted into fixed deposit with Auto Renewal Option.
8. It has also been stated in the reply that during the course of investigation no evidence could be unearthed that the cash so seized was representing the sale proceeds of unaccounted goods. However, a letter dated 23.10.2023 has been written to the Income Tax Authorities to take over the custody of fixed deposit of Rs. 1,90,66,000/- with request to take requisite action as deemed fit under the Income Tax provisions.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire amount resumed was duly accounted in the books of accounts of the petitioners, however, without verifying the said facts, the currency was resumed illegally by the Officers of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the CGST Officers had no power to seize the cash in exercise of its powers under Section 67 (2) of the "Central Goods & Se
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....
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 power of seizure under Section 67 of the Act is limited to goods liable for confiscation and is not for the recovery of tax but to ensure compliance and aid proceedings against tax evasion.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the gold bullion seized during the search was stock-in-trade and duly accounted in the books of accounts, as per the relevant provisions of FE....
Retention of seized documents is valid under applicable statutory provisions when ongoing inquiries are necessary, reflecting judicial deference to regulatory timelines and the complexity of fraud in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a show cause notice after the specified period does not invalidate the notice, and the court may reserve all rights and conten....
Currency notes and coins do not fall under the definition of 'documents' in Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, leading to the invalidation of the search and seizure executed withou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of dispossessing the petitioner of her assets without seizing them during the search proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act w....
The recent decision in Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor M/s Shri Shyam Metal v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West & Anr., 2023:DHC:5823-DB, influenced the court's decision to release the seized amount to ....
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.