The Delhi High Court asked the respondent department to forfeit or remit the cash charged from the premises of the applicant to the petitioner comprising interest.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has noted that ‘cash’ is excluded from the definition of the term ‘goods’ and would counted within the definition of ‘ money’ as described in Section 2 (75) of the GST Act. The bench expressed that as cash is not good, it cannot have been seized under the provisions of the Act, as the seizure is restricted to the goods accountable for confiscation.
Read More: Delhi HC: Unlawful for GST Authorities to Confiscate Cash on the Grounds of Suspicion of Black Money
The petitioner asks for a declaration that the cash seizure by the respondent department from the residential premises and office of the petitioner was illegal.
A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the applicant, i.e., the residential premises and the shop of the petitioner, and cash in the sum of Rs. 65,00,000 and Rs. 7,00,000 was seized from the residential premises and office of the applicant, respectively.
The court laid on the decision of the Delhi High Court for the matter of K.M. Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), where it was ruled that the seizure is restricted to goods accountable for confiscation or any documents, books, or things, and cash does not count within the depiction of goods.
| Case Title | Jagdish Bansal Vs. Union of India |
| Citation | W.P.(C) 16677/2023 & CM APPL. 67209/2023 |
| Date | 26.09.2024 |
| Petitioner by | Ms. Mehak Dhiman and Mr. Utkarsh Kumar |
| Respondent by | Mr Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, Mr Subesh Kumar, Ms Anushka Jakhodia |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
