In re Anil Kumar Tirthani (GST AAR Rajasthan)
In the matter of In re Anil Kumar Tirthani, the applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Rajasthan, raising multiple questions concerning the legality of GST search proceedings, seizure and confiscation of cash and goods, imposition of penalties, and treatment of goods allegedly belonging to third parties.
The applicant submitted that an unauthorized search was conducted at the residential premises of his uncle, Mr. Lalit Tirthani. It was stated that cash amounting to ₹10 lakhs was wrongly seized from the uncle’s premises and that an additional ₹37.45 lakhs was also seized, for which bifurcation and explanations were provided. Out of the said ₹37.45 lakhs, ₹21 lakhs allegedly pertained to Mr. Manish Hazari, ₹15 lakhs to Mr. Puranmal, and only ₹1.45 lakhs to the applicant’s father and family. Supporting documents and affidavits were claimed to have been submitted before the authorities.
It was further contended that 2,33,000 cigarettes valued at ₹18,67,690 were wrongly confiscated under Section 130(1) of the CGST Act read with Rule 139, as they allegedly did not belong to the applicant’s father but to agents of various companies who used the shop as a meeting point. The applicant also argued that cash does not fall within the definition of “goods” under the CGST Act and relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India, wherein it was held that cash would fall within the definition of “money” under Section 2(75) and not “goods.”
