Shiv Shankar Oil Udyog Vs Additional Director General (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a batch of writ petitions raising the common question whether GST authorities are empowered under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 or the corresponding provisions of the RGST Act, 2017 to seize cash found during a search by treating it as “goods” or “things”. Writ Petition No. 3912/2024 was treated as the lead matter. While some connected petitions also challenged show-cause notices, alleged coercive deposits and other consequential actions, the Court confined the present adjudication to the legality of seizure of money during a GST search. Other issues were left open, particularly in view of the appellate remedies available under Sections 107 and 112.
The Court examined Section 67(2) together with the definitions of “goods” under Section 2(52) and “money” under Section 2(75) of the CGST Act. It noted that the legislature expressly excluded “money and securities” from the definition of goods. The Court rejected the Revenue’s contention that cash could nevertheless be brought within the expression “things” appearing in Section 67(2). Comparing the statutory scheme with the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court observed that where the legislature intended to confer a power to seize money, it had expressly said so. “Goods”, “money” and “things” therefore could not be treated as synonymous expressions so as to indirectly bring money within a seizure power from which it had expressly been excluded. The Court also considered decisions of the Delhi, Kerala, Gujarat, Karnataka, Calcutta and Bombay High Courts concerning seizure of cash during GST searches and held that Section 67(2) cannot be converted into a general power to seize money merely because cash is discovered during a search or is alleged to be unaccounted.
