Case: M/s Jagdish Bansal Vs Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court) (W.P.(C) 16677/2023 & CM APPL. 67209/2023 dated 26th February 2024)
The hon’ble high court emphasized that since cash does not qualify as goods, it cannot be seized under the provisions of the Act. The court directed the tax department to remit the seized cash along with interest to the taxpayer.
Fact
- A search and seizure operation were carried out at the premises of the taxpayer (i.e. the residential premises as well as shop) on 30.11.2022 and cash in a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- was seized from the residential premises and office of the taxpayer respectively.
- The judgment of the Court in M/s K.M. Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director General (DGGI) 2024: DHC:1081-DB wherein, in the similar circumstances, the Court while interpreting provision of Section 67 of the act had held that ‘cash’ is clearly excluded from the definition of the term ‘goods’ and would fall with the definition of ‘money’ as defined in Section 2 (75) of the Act. In the referred judgement, Court held that since cash is not goods, it could not have been seized under the provision of the Act, as seizure is limited to the goods liable for confiscation.
Held
- The court relied on the earlier judgement and held that Cash is excluded from the definition of goods and is considered as Money as per the definition u/s 2 (75) of the GST Act, accordingly Cash cannot be seized.
- The court emphasized that since cash does not qualify as goods, it cannot be seized under the provisions of the Act. The judgment provided clarity on the scope of seizure under the GST Act, limiting it to goods liable for confiscation.
- Further the department was directed to forfeit/remit the said cash seized from the premises of the taxpayer to the taxpayer along with interest.