'Cash' Excluded From Definition Of 'Goods', Can't Be Seized: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the respondent department to forfeit or remit the cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to the petitioner along with interest. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that 'cash' is clearly excluded from the definition of the term 'goods' and would fall within the definition of'money' as defined in Section 2...
The Delhi High Court has directed the respondent department to forfeit or remit the cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to the petitioner along with interest.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that 'cash' is clearly excluded from the definition of the term 'goods' and would fall within the definition of'money' as defined in Section 2 (75) of the GST Act. The bench stated that since cash is not a good, it could not have been seized under the provisions of the Act, as seizure is limited to the goods liable for confiscation.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that the seizure of cash by the respondent department from the residential premises and office of the petitioner was unlawful.
A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the petitioner, i.e., the residential premises as well as the shop of the petitioner, and cash in the sum of Rs. 65,00,000 and Rs. 7,00,000 was seized from the residential premises and office of the petitioner, respectively.
The court relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of K.M. Food Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director General (DGGI), in which it was held that the seizure is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books, or things, and cash does not fall within the definition of goods.
Counsel For Petitioner: Mehak Dhiman
Counsel For Respondent: Sanjib Kumar Mohanty
Case Title: Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16677/2023 & CM APPL. 67209/2023