Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court

“Court Directs Release of ₹15,92,000 Seized in CGST Act Search, Citing Lack of Empowerment Under Section 67”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (East) to release ₹15,92,000 that was seized during a search operation. The court observed that the seizure was not empowered under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act).

The bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, delivered the judgement on August 24, 2023. The petitioner, Rajeev Chhatwal, had filed the case seeking the release of the seized amount.

“The petitioner contends that the seizure was not empowered by the said section,” the court noted in its judgement. This observation was pivotal in the court’s decision to direct the respondent to “remit the amount seized to the petitioner’s bank account within a period of two weeks from today along with accrued interest.”

The petitioner was arrested along with two others, Asif Khan and Arjun Sharma, but was later released on bail. The respondent had alleged that the petitioner was involved in a racket of issuing fake invoices. However, the petitioner denied these allegations and claimed that he had signed various documents under coercion.

The court also referred to a recent decision in Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor M/s Shri Shyam Metal v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West & Anr.: 2023:DHC:5823-DB, which favored the petitioner’s claim regarding the seizure.

While the court has directed the release of the seized amount, it clarified that “the respondent is not precluded from taking any such steps or measures as available in accordance with law.”

This ruling sets an important precedent for cases involving seizures under the CGST Act and emphasizes the need for authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of the law.

Date of Decision:  August 24, 2023

RAJEEV CHHATWAL vs COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND  SERVICES TAX (EAST)               

Similar News