Tax Authorities Illegally Seized Senior Citizen's Cash Without Proper Documentation, Must Refund Full Amount Immediately HC ruled that tax authorities illegally seized Rs. 19,50,000 from a senior citizen's residence without proper documentation. The court found no legal ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tax Authorities Illegally Seized Senior Citizen's Cash Without Proper Documentation, Must Refund Full Amount Immediately
HC ruled that tax authorities illegally seized Rs. 19,50,000 from a senior citizen's residence without proper documentation. The court found no legal basis for the cash seizure and directed full refund to the petitioner. Respondents were ordered to transfer the fixed deposit proceeds and conduct further proceedings with both the petitioner and her daughter-in-law present.
Issues involved: The petitioner challenges the removal of a sum of Rs. 19,50,000 during a search under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and seeks directions for refunding the amount.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Removal of Cash during Search The petitioner, a senior citizen and proprietor of M/s Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan, had cash amount seized during a search at her residence. The respondents seized the cash but did not officially record the seizure. The court found that the respondents had no authority to dispossess assets without seizure, deeming their actions illegal.
Issue 2: Possession of Seized Cash The respondents claimed to have placed the seized cash in a fixed deposit without initiating any proceedings for its return. However, it was found that the assumption that the cash belonged to the petitioner's daughter-in-law was erroneous, as it was recovered from a locked room where she did not have access. The court directed the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner and instructed both the petitioner and her daughter-in-law to appear before the respondent for further proceedings.
Conclusion: The court ordered the refund of the seized amount to the petitioner, emphasizing the illegality of the respondents' actions in dispossessing assets without proper seizure procedures. Additionally, instructions were given for the transfer of the fixed deposit proceeds to the petitioner's account if the daughter-in-law does not dispute the ownership of the money. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.