Lovely Estates vs. The Additional Director-General
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this Petition, Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/ to direct the Respondent to forthwith release / refund / return the cash of Rs.46,32,630/- to the Petitioner, in terms of the request of Petition letter dated 13.02.2024 (ANNEXURE- J).
b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 12.04.2022, the Respondent conducted search & seizure operations at the premises of the Petitioner by invoking Section 67(2) of the Central Goods Sales Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act” for short). During the course of the search and seizure proceedings, in addition to other documents, goods, etc., the Respondent also seized cash belonging to the Petitioner in a sum of Rs.46,32,630/- from the Petitioner. It is submitted that Petitioner has addressed representations/letter dated 13.02.2024 to the Respondent intimating that the cash seized by the it could not be described, construed or treated as “Things” within the meaning of Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, as held by this Court by order dated 20.02.2024 in W.P. No.25864/2023 (T-RES) between “B KUSUMA NC: 2024:KHC:37279 POONACHA & ANOTHER and SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (DGGI), BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT (BZU) & OTHERS”, disposed of on 20.02.2024. It is therefore submitted that necessary directions be issued to the Respondent to refund/repay/return forthwith the seized cash back to the Petitioner at the earliest, without any delay.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that there is no merit in the Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in KUSUMA POONACHA supra, this Court has already come to the conclusion that the expression “Things” as contemplated under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act does not include money/cash seized from the Petitioner during the course of search and seizure operations. While arriving at the said conclusion, this Court has held as under: ORDER
“(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A2 dated 21.09.2022 passed by 1st respondent is hereby set aside. NC: 2024:KHC:37279 (iii) The concerned respondents are directed to refund / repay/ return the entire subject sum / cash of Rs.1,71,07,500/- seized from the premises of the petitioner No.1 on 20/21.09.2022 together with accrued interest back to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today.
(iv) It is however clarified that the respondents are not precluded from instituting or continuing any other proceedings in accordance with law.”
Therefore, the judgment of this Court in KUSUMA POONACHA supra is directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and consequently, the present petition deserves to be disposed of in the same terms issuing directions to the Respondent to refund/repay/return the cash amounting to Rs.46,32,630/- seized from the Petitioner.
In the above circumstances, this Court makes the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-J dated 13.04.2022 passed by Respondent is hereby set aside. NC: 2024:KHC:37279 (iii) The concerned Respondent is directed to refund / repay/ return the entire subject sum / cash of Rs.46,32,630/- seized from the premises of the petitioner on 12.04.2022 together with accrued interest back to the Petitioner immediately after the receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) It is however clarified that the respondent is not precluded from instituting or continuing any other proceedings in accordance with law.” (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
Bsv
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.