TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."(a) direct the Respondents to deposit balance sum of Rs.1,04,00,000/- taken away on 04.12.2020 during search, from the Petitioner No.2 premises and possession, and be kept in the interest-bearing fixed deposit in the name of Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court during the pendency of present writ petition." 2. The undisputed facts are that a search operation was conducted at the residence of the petitioners on 04.12.2020, by certain officers of GST, AE, Delhi, West under Section 67(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the GST Act'). During the course of the search, the officers found cash aggregating to Rs.1,22,87,000/- and took possession of the said cash. Admittedly, no seizure memo was drawn in respect of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etel nuts, but the enquiry revealed that such trading was without actual movement of goods. It was also revealed that there was a saree shop at the said premises operating under the name of 'Taksh Sarees'. And, no concern with the name Samriddhi Enterprises was operating from the said address. 7. Apparently, Sh. Rakesh Pal had made a statement that the said concern was opened by petitioner no.1. He also named a few other persons. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not assessees from whom any tax or amount is to be recovered. 9. The laptop and mobile phones, which were taken away by the concerned officers, were subsequently returned to petitioner no.1. However, the cash collected by the officers was deposited in a fixed deposit receipt in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o seized would be retained by the officer only so long as may be necessary "for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under the Act." 14. However, there is no occasion for this Court to now examine the aforesaid question as it is the respondents' stand that the cash was not seized. It is contended that the seizure memo was not prepared as the officers, who had conducted the search operation, had, in fact, not seized any cash. 15. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the officers had merely "resumed" cash as is noted in the panchnama and therefore, the same cannot be considered as seizure. 16. However, Mr Harpreet Singh is unable to point out any provision in the GST Act that entitles any of....