TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est. According to them, there is no notice issued by the respondent authority in this regard and any seizure of the cash is contrary to law. Moreover, the retention beyond six months and thereafter, with the permission for the six months, is the outer limit provided under the GST Act. Therefore, the present petition with following prayers : "22(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to forthwith return the cash of Rs.69,98,400 seized from the petitioners along with appropriate interest/ compensation for illegal retention; (B) Pending notice, admission and final hearing of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith return the cash of Rs.69,98,400 seized from the petitioners along with appropriate interest/ compensation for illegal retention; (C) Ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer B may kindly be granted; (D) Such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice for which act of kindness your petitioners shall forever pray." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things. He would submit that cash, which is seized by the respondent would not form the subject matter of seizure as they are neither goods, documents or things, in as much as under the frame work of the Act. When there is no reason to believe that seizure of cash is useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, it cannot be seized. In this case, cash cannot be seized under the provisions of Section 67, particularly when it is not shown as stock in trade of the assessee. It is also evident, in learned advocate Ms.Sheth's submission that if the definition of the word "goods" under this Act is read, which means every kind of movable property other than money. Fairly stating that there is decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt.Kanishka Matta Vs. Union of India and others reported in [2020]120 taxmann.com 174, where the Court in Para-18 opined that the term "thing" would include "money", he would su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missions of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it will be in fitness of things to reproduce the provisions of section 67 of the CGST Act particularly section 67(2)(3)(7) of the Act, which reads as under: 67 Power of inspection, search and seizure" (1) ... ... ... (2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer, or any officer authorized by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer: Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized shall be ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....telligence Officer passed an order dated 21.3.2023, disposing the representation preferred by the appellants as per the directions of the learned single Judge. On a reading of the order that rejects the said representation we find that the stand taken by the Intelligence Officer is essentially that in view of the specific provisions of Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, which authorises the seizure of 'things', which inter alia includes cash also as held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the judgment dated 26.8.2020 in WP(C)No.8204 of 2020, the authority was justified in seizing the cash and retaining the same pending a culmination of the investigation. We must admit to being a bit puzzled by the stand taken by the said Intelligence Officer in the order dated 21.03.2023 that is now produced before us by the learned Government Pleader. While it may be a fact that Section 67(2) of the CGST Act authorizes the seizure of things, including cash in appropriate cases, we do not think that the present is a case that called for a seizure of the cash found in the premises of the appellants at the time of the search. The power of any authority to seize any 'thing' while functioning und....