NAND KISHORE GUPTA v. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(52); GST statutory provision - Section 2(75); GST statutory provision - Section 3(21); GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 130; GST statutory provision - Section 152; GST statutory provision - Section 152(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Suffice it to state that, while addressing the question of whether currency could constitute “Goods” within the meaning of 2(52)4 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the „Act‟) and whether the same could be seized under Section 67 5 of the Operative disposition: In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings conducted on 28-1-2020. It is, however, clarified that the respondents are not precluded from instituting or continuing any other proceedings under the Act in accordance with law. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the petitioner's liability to pay any tax, penalty or interest under the
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

1. The petitioner is invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking an appropriate writ, order or directions , thereby seeking quashing of the seizure order INS-02 dated 15 February 2021, qua the seizure of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 23,50,000/ - from the residential premises of the petitioner in Delhi as illegal , and also seeking directions against the respondents to forthwith release the aforesaid sum along with applicable interest. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, at the outset, we find that the facts of the present case and t he legal repercussions are squarely covered by the decision

rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Deepak Khandelwal, Proprietor, M/s. Shri Shyam Metal v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West & Anr.1 as well as decision in Rahul Tayal & Ors. vs. Additional Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit &Ors.2, of which one of us was a member. But first let us narrate the factual background. ANALYSIS & DECISION 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner, who is the sole proprietor of M/s. Ashish Traders, a firm engaged in the business of trading in iron scrap operating from Delhi, was subjected to a search by the DGGI3 on 15.02.2021 in connection with an investigation into the alleged fraudulent availment of „Input Tax Credit ‟ by M/s. Jai Mateshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. , during which various documents, electronic devices and a cash amount of Rs. 23,50,000/- were seized. 4. Suffice it to state that, while addressing the question of whether currency could constitute “Goods” within the meaning of 2(52)4 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the „Act‟) and whether the same could be seized under Section 67 5 of the

(3) The documents, books or things referred to in sub-section (2) or any other documents, books or things produced by a taxable person or any other person, which have not been relied upon for the issue of notice under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be returned to such person within a period not exceeding thirty days of the issue of the said notice. (4) The officer authorised under sub-section (2) shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied.

(7) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (2) and no notice in respect thereof is given within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be e xtended by the proper officer for a further period not exceeding six months. (8) The Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage s pace for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (2), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as may be prescribed.

43. Sub-section (3) of Section 67 of the Act, consistent with the legislative intent of permitting seizure of books or documents or things, provides that if the documents or books or things seized under sub-section (2) are not relied upon for issue of a notice under the Act or rules made thereunder, the same shall be returned within a period of thirty days. Although, there is no ambiguity in the language of sub -section (2) of Section 67 of the Act that seizure of books or documents or thin gs is permissible only if the same are considered useful for or relevant to the proceedings under the Act; sub-section (3) of Section 67 makes it amply clear that the purpose of seizure of books or documents or things is only for the purpose of reliance in the proceedings under the Act. It, thus, posits that if the documents or books or things are not relied upon in any notice that is issued, the same are liable to be returned.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

“40. It is clear from the schematic reading of Section 67 as well as other provisions of the Act that the purpose of Section 67 of the Act is not recovery of tax; it is not a machinery provision for enforcing a liability. The purpose of Section 67 of the Act is to empower authorities to unearth tax evasion and ensure that taxable supplies are brought to tax. In respect of goods and supplies, which are subject-matter of evasion, the proper officer has the power to seize the goods to ensure that taxes are paid. Once the department is secured in this regard either by discharge of such liability or by such security or bond as the authority concerned deems fit the goods are required to be released in terms of sub -section (6) of Section 67 of the Act.

46. It is clear from the scheme of Section 67 of the Act that the word “things” is required to be read, ejusdem generis, with the preceding words “documents” and “books”. It is apparent that the legislative intent of using a wide term such as “things” is to include all material that may be informative or contain information, which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Act. Although, documents and books are used to store information; they are not the

49. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hasan Mamad case [Emperor v. Hasan Mamad , 1940 SCC OnLine Bom 31 : AIR 1940 Bom 378] rejected the contention that the hand-driven lorry containing fruits could be considered as “thing” either under clause ( a) or clause ( b) of sub -section (1) of Section 152 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. It is held that the word “thing” in both the clauses is required to be construed ejusdem generis. The hand-driven lorry thus could not be considered as a stall or any projecting structure or a box, bale, package or merchandise. The court further held as under: “The question is whether the hand cart, which the accused had kept in the street, fell within the prohibition contained in Section 152 sub -section (1), of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act.

In addition, the court had also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court referring to the Heydon's rule, and concluded that money was included in the word “things”. With much respect to the Court and its opinion, we are unable to persuade ourselves to adopt the said view. As noted above, the power of search and seizure are drastic powers and are not required to be construed liberally. Further, we find that the legislative intent of permitting seizure of books or documents or things in terms of sub -section (2) of Section 67 of the Act is crystal clear and it does not permit seizure of currency or valuable assets, simply, on the ground that the same represent unaccounted wealth.

Operative decision and relief

63. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings conducted on 28-1-2020. It is, however, clarified that the respondents are not precluded from instituting or continuing any other proceedings under the Act in accordance with law. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the petitioner's liability to pay any tax, penalty or interest under the Act.”

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with NAND KISHORE GUPTA v. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS. concerns issue and context: suffice it to state that, while addressing the question of whether currency could constitute “goods” within the meaning of 2(52)4 of the central goods and services tax act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the „act‟) and whether the same could be seized under section 67 5 of the operative disposition: in view of the above, the petition is allowed. the respondents are directed to forthwith release the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings conducted on 28-1-2020. it is, however, clarified that the respondents are not precluded from instituting or continuing any other proceedings under the act in accordance with law. nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the petitioner's liability to pay any tax, penalty or interest under the The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 16900/2024.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: Suffice it to state that, while addressing the question of whether currency could constitute “Goods” within the meaning of 2(52)4 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the „Act‟) and whether the same could be seized under Section 67 5 of the Operative disposition: In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the currency and other valuable assets seized from the petitioner during the search proceedings conducted on 28-1-2020. It is, however, clarified that the respondents are not precluded from instituting or continuing any other proceedings under the Act in accordance with law. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the petitioner's liability to pay any tax, penalty or interest under the Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2(52); GST statutory provision - Section 2(75); GST statutory provision - Section 3(21); GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 130; GST statutory provision - Section 152; GST statutory provision - Section 152(1)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2(52); GST statutory provision - Section 2(75); GST statutory provision - Section 3(21); GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 130; GST statutory provision - Section 152; GST statutory provision - Section 152(1) and the decision date 2024-12-17; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is NAND KISHORE GUPTA v. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 16900/2024, and the decision is dated 2024-12-17. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL). A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2(52); GST statutory provision - Section 2(75); GST statutory provision - Section 3(21); GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 79; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122; GST statutory provision - Section 129; GST statutory provision - Section 130; GST statutory provision - Section 152; GST statutory provision - Section 152(1). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2(52) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(75) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 3(21) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 67 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 67(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 79 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 83 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 122 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 129 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 130 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 152 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 152(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Nitin Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY