No provision under the CGST Act to “resume” or dispossess any person of his assets, without seizing the same
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Baleshwari Devi v. Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Central Goods and Service Tax [W.P.(C) 5056 of 2023 – HC-GW-803-2023-DL order dated July 21, 2023 has held that Revenue Department has no power to take possession of the personal assets without official seizure under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Facts:
The petitioner is a senior citizen and claims that she is a proprietor of a concern named M/s Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan.
A search was conducted in the residential premises, where the petitioner and her family reside. At the material time, the petitioner was not present at her residence and the room occupied by her was locked. During the course of the search, respondents seized some files, loose papers and cheque leaves. They also found a sum of ?19,50,000/- in cash and took possession of the same.
The Petitioner filed a writ before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court requesting for directions be issued to the respondent to refund the said amount.
Observations
- It is admitted that the respondents have not seized the cash. The seizure memo also does not record seizure of the cash.
- The respondents have innovatively coined another term ‘resume’ – to denote taking forcible possession of the assets without recording seizure of the said assets. There is no provision under the CGST Act, which empowers the respondents to "resume" or dispossess any person of his assets, without seizing the same.
- There is no dispute that the respondents are required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the rules thereunder.
- The action of the Department in dispossessing the petitioner or any of the family members of any of their assets in the proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act, without seizing the same, is illegal.
- The respondents cannot continue with the possession of the currency collected from the petitioner’s residence.
- The assumption that the cash recovered from the locked room was in the possession of Seema Gupta (the petitioner’s daughter-in law) is ex facie erroneous.
Held
We direct the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner. The Department shall take immediate steps for pre-mature encashment of the fixed deposit and transfer of the proceeds to the account of the petitioner.
