High Court Directs Refund of Seized Cash in CGST Act Case

Case Name:

W.P.(C) 8713/2023 - Gunjan Bindal and Anr. v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West and Ors.

Key Takeaways:

1. High Court directed the respondents to release an aggregate amount of ₹1,15,00,000/- seized under the CGST Act.
2. The petitioners were instructed to provide their bank account details to the respondents within a week.
3. The respondents were directed to remit the seized amounts along with accrued interest to the bank accounts of the respective petitioners within two weeks.
4. The court clarified that the order does not preclude the Income Tax Department or any other authority from taking necessary steps in regard to the petitioners possessing such cash.

Case Synopsis:

The provided is an excerpt from a court order issued by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, with the case number W.P.(C) 8713/2023. The petitioners in this case are Gunjan Bindal and another individual, represented by their advocates Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Mr. Aamnaya Jagannath Mishra, and Mr. Bipin Punia. The respondents in this case are the Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West, and others, represented by their counsels Mr. R. Ramachandran, Mr. Vijay Joshi, and Mr. Gurdas Singh Narula.

The court order, dated November 17, 2023, addresses the petitioners’ request for the release of an aggregate amount of ₹1,15,00,000/- that was seized by respondent no.2. The petitioners are brothers residing in separate floors of a building in New Delhi. A search was conducted at their residential premises under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), during which a significant amount of cash was found in their respective bedrooms.

The court order mentions that the petitioners were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence to support the source of the cash, leading the officers to believe that it had resulted from unlawful activity or was the sale proceeds of goods without proper accounting. The petitioners subsequently requested the release of the seized amount, but it was not released.

The petitioners contended that the officers had no power to seize cash under Section 67 of the CGST Act on the ground that the same was not satisfactorily explained. The court noted that the issue is covered by earlier decisions of the court in similar cases.

The court ordered that the respondents are liable to refund the money seized. It further directed respondent no.2 to remit the seized amounts along with accrued interest to the bank accounts of the respective petitioners. The petitioners were instructed to provide the details of their bank accounts to respondent no.2 within a week, and the respondents were directed to remit the amounts to the said bank accounts within two weeks thereafter.

Additionally, the court clarified that this would not preclude the Income Tax Department or any other authority from taking necessary steps in regard to the petitioners possessing such cash, and the respondents are also not precluded from taking such steps under the relevant statute in accordance with the law.

This court order provides a detailed account of the legal proceedings and the decision made by the High Court of Delhi in response to the petitioners’ request for the release of the seized amount.

FAQ:

Q1: What was the case about?

A1: The case involved the seizure of cash from the residential premises of the petitioners during a search conducted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Q2: What was the court’s decision?

A2: The High Court directed the respondents to release the seized amount and remit it along with accrued interest to the bank accounts of the respective petitioners.

Q3: What were the key instructions given by the court?

A3: The petitioners were instructed to provide their bank account details to the respondents within a week, and the respondents were directed to remit the seized amounts within two weeks thereafter.

Q4: Does the court order have any implications for other authorities?

A4: The court clarified that the order does not preclude the Income Tax Department or any other authority from taking necessary steps in regard to the petitioners possessing such cash.