Bharatkumar Pravinkumar And Co. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
In this case, the Gujarat High Court considered a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the authorities in not releasing cash amounting to ₹69,98,400 seized from the petitioners. The petitioners, a partnership firm engaged in courier services and registered under the GST Act, sought return of the seized cash along with interest, contending that the seizure and continued retention were contrary to law.
The background facts indicate that silver bars belonging to the petitioners had earlier been seized by the Income Tax Department in 2004 and were subsequently released pursuant to a court order in 2018. These silver bars were later sold in October 2019, and the sale proceeds were received through banking channels. The petitioners withdrew the amount in cash in late 2020 and early November 2021. On 13.11.2020, while the cash was being transported to a branch office, it was seized by the authorities under Section 67(2) of the GST Act. The petitioners made a representation for release of the cash, which remained undecided, leading to the present petition.
The petitioners argued that Section 67 of the GST Act permits seizure only of “goods,” “documents,” “books,” or “things” that are useful or relevant for proceedings under the Act. It was contended that cash does not qualify as “goods” since the statutory definition excludes money. Further, it was submitted that cash could not be treated as a “thing” in the context of the Act, particularly when it was not part of stock-in-trade and there was no material to show its relevance to any GST proceedings. Reliance was placed on judicial decisions, including those of the Kerala High Court and the Delhi High Court, which interpreted the scope of Section 67(2) and held that seizure must be guided by the object of the statute.
