According to the Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017, the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench recently ordered the return of the money the GST officers had taken into their possession, along with interest.
The authorities discovered and seized custody of cash totaling Rs 1,22,87,000 during the course of the search at the petitioners’ home.
However, no seizure memo was created for the aforementioned funds. However, a panchnama was created, indicating that the responsible officials seized control of several objects, including cash totaling Rs 1.04 cr and cash totaling Rs 18.87 lakhs. Along with computers, the aforementioned cops also seized custody of mobile phones.
The petitioner has argued that the aforementioned search operation was illegal for a number of reasons. The petitioner argues that the relevant authorities had no basis for supposing that any items that may have been seized were present on the petitioners’ property. Additionally, it was asserted that the involved officials had no basis for thinking that any records important to the proceedings would be present on the property.
The attorneys for the petitioner disputed the purportedly illegal act of seizing cash during a search on behalf of the petitioner. Additionally, it was claimed that the petitioner afterward received the laptop and mobile phones that the relevant authorities had taken away. However, the money was placed in a fixed deposit under the name of the Indian President.
The petitioner argued that the ability to take items under Section 67(2) of the GST Act could only be used if the commodities were subject to confiscation. Only if the documents, books, or things are helpful or related to any actions under the GST Act may they be seized.
Mr Harpreet Singh, representing the revenue, maintained that the officers had just “resumed” the cash in accordance with the panchnama, but was unable to cite any section in the GST Act that permits any GST official to only “resume” assets.
The income was instructed to repay the remaining “resumed” money from the petitioners, plus interest. The Division Bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan further ordered the prompt release of the bank guarantee provided for the release of money.
The concerned GST officers, Superintendent Vinod Prakash Sharma, and Sandeep Dhama were also rendered to be present at the court on 20 February 2023.
| Case Title | Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST) |
| Citation | W.P.(C) 6924/2022 |
| Date | 19.01.2023 |
| Counsel For Petitioner | Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mr. Satyam Thareja, Ms. Vasundhara Nagarath and Ms. Shriyanshi Pathak Advs |
| Counsel For Respondent | Additional Standing Counsel Satyakam |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
