Petition dismissed, Section 107 remedy affirmed; cash held not 'goods' and cannot be seized under CGST Act

HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the adjudication proceedings concerning alleged fraudulent ITC, holding that all Relied Upon Documents had been supplied and adequate opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing, was provided. The petitioner's failure to diligently participate could not later be framed as a natural justice violation. HC found no jurisdictional error and directed the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, HC held that cash does not fall within the definition of "goods" under the CGST Act and, therefore, cannot be seized under its provisions. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the seizure of cash from the petitioner's premises was justified under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
• Whether the petitioner was provided with all the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) necessary for a fair adjudication process.
• Whether the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to be heard, thus ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
• Whether the petitioner should be directed to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act instead of filing a writ petition.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Justification of Cash Seizure

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to Section 67 of the CGST Act, which outlines the provisions for search and seizure. The Court also cited its previous judgment in K.M. Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director General (DGGI), which interprets that cash is excluded from the definition of "goods" and falls under "money" as defined in Section 2(75) of the Act.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that cash could not be seized under the CGST Act as it is not categorized as "goods" liable for confiscation.
• Key Evidence and Findings: Cash amounting to Rs. 72,00,000/- was seized during the search, which was later deemed unjustified by the Court based on the legal interpretation.
• Conclusion: The Court directed the respondents to remit the seized cash to the petitioner along with interest, clarifying that the respondents could still pursue other legal actions under the Act.

2. Provision of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs)

• Relevant Legal Framework: The provision of RUDs is essential for ensuring a fair hearing and compliance with principles of natural justice.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the RUDs were provided to the petitioner via a CD, as evidenced by the records. The petitioner's emails lacked specificity regarding which RUDs were allegedly missing.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the petitioner had received a list of RUDs, and the GST Department had provided a virtual link for the proceedings.
• Conclusion: The Court concluded that the petitioner was supplied with all necessary RUDs and had no valid grievance regarding their availability.

3. Opportunity to be Heard and Compliance with Natural Justice

• Relevant Legal Framework: Principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner had the opportunity to file a reply and was notified of the hearing dates. The petitioner chose not to participate diligently in the proceedings.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's preliminary reply was considered in the Order-in-Original, and the petitioner was aware of the hearing schedule.
• Conclusion: The Court found no violation of natural justice principles and determined that the petitioner had adequate opportunity to be heard.

4. Availing Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 of the CGST Act

• Relevant Legal Framework: Section 107 of the CGST Act provides for an appellate remedy against orders passed by the adjudicating authority.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• Conclusion: The Court directed the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy, noting that the writ petition was not justified given the available statutory appeal process.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Cash is clearly excluded from the definition of the term 'goods' and would fall within the definition of 'money' as defined in Section 2(75) of the Act."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces that cash cannot be seized under the CGST Act as it is not categorized as "goods." It also underscores the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court ordered the remission of seized cash to the petitioner, confirmed the provision of RUDs, upheld the compliance with natural justice, and directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

---