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

2024 Supreme(Del) 399

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

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suha Mathur, Advocate, for the Respondents.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 seizure to be limited to goods liable for confiscation and found the seizure of cash to be illegal and arbitrary.

Headnote:

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. NoParticularsCash in Hand1)K M Foods Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.29,51,257/-2)Apparent Marketing Pvt. Ltd.85,41,191/-3)Mukesh Kapoor68,63,552/-4)Saroj Kapoor7,10,000/-Total1,90,66,000/-

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

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