Delhi High Court
Jagdish Bansal, Proprietor, M/S Shivam ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 26 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 26.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 16677/2023 & CM APPL. 67209/2023
JAGDISH BANSAL, PROPRIETOR,
M/S SHIVAM IRON STORE ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner Ms. Mehak Dhiman and Mr. Utkarsh Kumar,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, SPL with Mr. Subesh
Kumar S., Ms. Anushka Jakhodia, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Akshay Amri Tanshu, Sr. Standing Counsel with
Ms. Anjali Kumari, Mr. Samyak Jain and Mr. Ayush
Raj, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.1 submits that he has been appearing in these
proceedings through VC, however, his presence has not been noticed
in orders dated 22.12.2023, 03.01.2024 and 11.01.2024 though he
had appeared for respondent no.1.
2. In view of the above, the presence of Mr. Sanjib Kumar
Mohanty, Advocate shall be read in orders dated 22.12.2023,
03.01.2024 and 11.01.2024 as having been appeared for respondent
No.1.
3. Petitioner seeks a declaration that seizure of cash by respondent
no.2 from the residential premises and office of the petitioner was
unlawful.
4. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises
of the petitioner (i.e. the residential premises as well as shop of the
petitioner) on 30.11.2022 and cash in a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- and Rs.
7,00,000/- was seized from the residential premises and office of the
petitioner respectively.
5. Reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in K.M.
Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director General (DGGI) 2024:
DHC:1081-DB wherein in similar circumstances this Court while
interpreting provision of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act 2017 (herein referred to as) has held that 'cash' is clearly
excluded from the definition of the term 'goods' and would fall with
the definition of 'money' as defined in Section 2 (75) of the Act. This
Court has further held that since cash is not goods, it could not have
been seized under the provision of the Act, as seizure is limited to the
goods liable for confiscation.
6. The ratio of the said judgments squarely applied to the facts of
the present case. Accordingly, we hold that there is no justification for
resumption of cash and its continued retention by the respondents.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and respondents are directed to
forfeit/remit the said cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to
the petitioner along with interest. It is however clarified that
respondents are not precluded from taking any action or instituting
any other proceedings under the Act in accordingly with law.
7. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2024/ss
