Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court addressed the validity of a seizure order u/s 67(2) of the CGST Act, focusing on whether the term "things" includes cash/currency seized during search and seizure. The Court considered conflicting interpretations from different High Courts. It held that cash/currency is not encompassed within the term "things" in the provision. The Court emphasized that the purpose of u/s 67(2) is not to recover tax through asset seizure. The Court found the seizure order invalid as the authority lacked "reasons to believe" prior to the seizure, as required by the Act. The Court also noted the delay in completing proceedings post-seizure, directing the revenue authority to return the seized cash with interest. The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The High Court addressed the validity of a seizure order u/s 67(2) of the CGST Act, focusing on whether the term "things" includes cash/currency seized during search and seizure. The Court considered conflicting interpretations from different High Courts. It held that cash/currency is not encompassed within the term "things" in the provision. The Court emphasized that the purpose of u/s 67(2) is not to recover tax through asset seizure. The Court found the seizure order invalid as the authority lacked "reasons to believe" prior to the seizure, as required by the Act. The Court also noted the delay in completing proceedings post-seizure, directing the revenue authority to return the seized cash with interest. The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
