Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“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)               

Latest Legal News