GAHC010090222026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/2513/2026 ANKIT CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI SHASHI KUMAR CHOUDHARY, R/O SPACE TOWN HOUSING COMPLEX, BL-4, FLAT-5J, VIP ROAD, KOLKATA- 700052, WEST BENGAL WHO IS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S ANKIT ENTERPRISES HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS NEAR RITURAJ HOTEL, 3RD FLOOR, TALUKDAR BUILDING, KEDAR ROAD, GUWAHTI, KAMRUP METROPOLITAN, ASSAM- 781001 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001

2:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001

3:SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO. 4 BYE LANE NO. 2 RAJGARH MAIN ROAD P.O.- SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI- 781003

4:INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO. 4 BYE LANE NO. 2 RAJGARH MAIN ROAD P.O.- SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR P BARUAH,MR. P DAS,MR. N N DUTTA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR P K BORA,B SARMA,MR. A. KAUSHIK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, CGST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

15.05.2026 Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. J. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Mr. S. Chetia, learned Senior Counsel & Standing Counsel, CGST for the respondent no. 2; and Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel &

Special Counsel, DGGI for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

2. A search and seizure proceeding under Section 67[2] of the CGST Act was carried out in the premises of the petitioner on 05.06.2025 and at the end of the proceeding, a Panchanama and an Order of Seizure of even date were issued. In the course of the said proceeding, a cash amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- and several Bank Cards were seized, apart from three mobile phones registered in the name of the petitioner. Other items including a pen drive were also seized during the process.

3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that cash and Bank Cards could not have been seized in exercise of powers under Section 67[2] of the CGST Act as cash and Bank Cards do not come within the purview of the definition of ‘goods’. Moreover, the respondent authorities could have retrieved all the materials from the mobile phones of the petitioner and there is no reason for not releasing cash, Bank Cards, mobile phones, etc. of the petitioner despite elapse of more than eleven months since 05.06.2025. It is submitted that only goods suspected to be subject-matter for evasion of tax in a proceeding under Section 67[2] of the CGST Act can be seized and none of the afore- stated items like cash, mobile phones and Bank Cards can be held to be goods to be made subject-matter of evasion of tax.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents have sought time to respond to the contention regarding illegal retention of the seized items.

5. Issue notice, returnable on 03.06.2026.

6. As Ms. J. Sarma, learned CGC has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent no. 1; Mr. Chetia, learned Senior Counsel & Standing Counsel, CGST has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 2; and Mr. Jain, learned counsel has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 & 4, issuance of formal notice to the respondents is dispensed with. Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures to the respective learned counsel for the respondents within 2 [two] working days from today.

7. List the case on 03.06.2026.

8. The respondents shall ensure that their responses are filed on or before the returnable date.

JUDGE Comparing Assi