Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Kanishka Matta Vs Union of India and Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : WP No. 8204/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/08/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Kanishka Matta Vs Union of India and Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The issue under consideration is whether seizure of the cash amount to the tune of Rs 66 lakhs by Senior Intelligence Officer at the time of Search Operation is justified in law?

In the present case, the documents and cash were seized in terms of Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Order of Seizure in Form GST INS-02 was issued. This is mainly because, Shri Sanjay Matta, the husband of the petitioner, made a voluntary statement stating categorically that the said cash of Rs.66 lakhs was the sale proceeds of the illegally sold Pan Masala without payment of GST. Further, the statement made in the case diary reveals that Shri Sanjay Matta, a Pakistani National, was involved in illicit supply of Pan Masala of various brands without invoices and without payment of applicable GST.

High Court states that, the core issue is that whether expression “things” covers within its meaning the cash or not. In the considered opinion of High Court, the CGST Act, 2017 has to be seen as a whole and the definition clauses are the keys to unlock the intent and purpose of the various sections and expressions used therein, where the said provisions are put to implementation. Section 2(17) defines “business” and Section 2(31) defines “consideration”. In the considered opinion of High Court a conjoint reading of Section 2(17), 2(31), 2(75) and 67(2) makes it clear that money can also be seized by authorized officer. Resultantly, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the material available in the case diary and also keeping in view Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, High Court is of the opinion that the authorities have rightly seized the amount from the husband of the petitioner and unless and until the investigation is carried out and the matter is finally adjudicated, the question of releasing the amount does not arise. The writ petition is dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031