Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy against the provisional attachment by filing objections in Form GST DRC-22A under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules. The Petitioner is at liberty to avail this remedy and raise all available legal grounds against the attachment. The Court noted that the cash was deposited into the Petitioner's account and the attachment subsists, thus no separate direction for release of the amount was issued at this stage. The Court also clarified that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect upon the expiry of one year from the date of the attachment order. Regarding the seized documents and electronic devices, the Petitioner had already submitted a representation dated May 16, 2026. Respondent No. 1 was directed to ensure that this representation is considered and decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of the order. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the provisional attachment or the Petitioner's entitlement to the release of seized items. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Facts

The Petitioner, Kamlasana Impex Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 57,89,500/- during a search on December 22, 2025, and the subsequent provisional attachment of its bank account by an order dated December 26, 2025, issued by Respondent No. 1 (Director General of GST Intelligence). The Petitioner also sought the release of seized documents and electronic devices. The Petitioner's Director was arrested on February 5, 2026, and granted bail on April 7, 2026. The seized cash was deposited into the Petitioner's bank account on December 29, 2025, which was then provisionally attached. The Petitioner had a statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules to file objections against the attachment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 57,89,500/- and the consequential proceedings, including the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's bank account under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were unlawful, without jurisdiction, and ultra vires Section 67 of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the order dated December 26, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 1 in Form GST DRC-22 under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether Respondent No. 1 should be directed to release the documents and electronic devices seized pursuant to orders dated December 22, 2025, issued in Form GST INS-02 under Rule 139(2) of the CGST Rules? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the seizure and attachment were unlawful and without jurisdiction. They sought a writ of Mandamus for the return of cash and a writ of Certiorari to quash the attachment order. They also sought the release of seized documents and electronic devices. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue or Respondent No. 1. However, the Court noted the Petitioner's statutory remedy against the provisional attachment.