Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Revenue Department cannot seize cash which does not form part of stock in trade

Bimal jain
Supreme Court Affirms Kerala High Court's Decision: Cash Seized in Tax Probe Ruled Unrelated to Tax Evasion Under CGST Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue Department's appeal against the Kerala High Court's decision, which ordered the release of cash seized during a tax investigation. The cash, found at the respondent's premises, was argued not to be part of the business's stock in trade but rather a gift received at a marriage. The High Court ruled that the seizure was unjustified under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, as the cash did not relate to tax evasion. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that cash not part of business inventory cannot be seized in such investigations. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) & ORS. VERSUS SHABU GEORGE & ANR. - 2023 (8) TMI 309 - SC ORDERdismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue Department against the order of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court ordering the Revenue Department to release the cash seized during the search since, such cash does not forms part of stock in trade of business.

Facts:

The premises of Shabu George (“the Respondent”) were investigated by the Revenue Department for detection of tax evasion under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”). During the search, a significant amount of cash was seized from the Respondent’s premises.

The Revenue Department did not issue a show cause notice to the Respondent in connection with the investigation even after 6 months.

Aggrieved by the seizure of cash the Respondent filed a writ before the Hon’ble Kerela High Court and contended that fact that the statutory provisions authorize the seizure of ‘things’, the word ‘things’ would include not cash in case where the cash did not form part of the stock in trade of any business since, the cash found during the investigation pertains to cash received in marriage as gift.

The High court observed that power to seize any ‘thing’ while functioning under the provisions of a taxing statute must be guided by the objective of the statute concerned. In the present case, the investigation was aimed at detecting tax evasion. Thus, seizure of cash which did not form part of the stock in trade was not justified. Accordingly, the retention of such cash by the Revenue department was not correct. The High Court ordered the Revenue Department to release the cash seized from the Respondent’s premises.

Aggrieved by the Order of the High Court the Revenue Department filed a Special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the cash which does not form part of stock in trade of the business can be seized during search proceeding under GST?

Held:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) & ORS. VERSUS SHABU GEORGE & ANR. - 2023 (8) TMI 309 - SC ORDER held as under:

  • Dismissed the appeal of the Revenue Department and held that the court is not inclined to interfere with the judgement and order of the High court.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles