Madhya Pradesh HC in the case of Smt. Kanishka Matta

Case Covered:

Smt. Kanishka Matta

Versus

Union of India

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.4 – Assistant Director, DGGSTI, Indore and respondent No.5 – Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGSTI, Indore to release the cash amounting to Rs.66,43,130/- seized from the petitioner vide Panchnama dated 30/05/2020 from the residential premises of the petitioner and her husband.

The petitioner is the wife of Shri Sanjay Matta. Shri Sanjay Matta is the Proprietor of the firm functioning in the name and style of M/s. S. S. Enterprises. The Firm is in the business of Confectionery and Pan Masala items. The petitioner has further stated that search operation was carried out by respondent No.5 (Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGSTI, Indore) at the business premises as well as residential premises and a Panchnama was drawn on 31/05/2020. The respondents have also seized an amount to the tune of Rs.66 Lakhs as per the Panchnama prepared by them.

Observations of the Court:

The core issue before this Court is whether expression “things” covers within its meaning the cash or not. In the considered opinion of this Court, the CGST Act, 2017 has to be seen as a whole and the definition clauses are the keys to unlock the intent and purpose of the various sections and expressions used therein, where the said provisions are put to implementation. Section 2(17) defines “business” and Section 2(31) defines “consideration”. In the considered opinion of this Court, a conjoint reading of Section 2(17), 2(31), 2(75), and 67(2) makes it clear that money can also be seized by an authorized officer.

The decision of the Court:

The aforesaid case was a case under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that evidence brought on record by way of confession, which stood retracted must be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence, which would lend adequate assurance to the Court that it may seek to rely thereupon. In the present case, the authorities are at the stage of the investigation. The evidence is being collected and therefore, at this stage, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help. 

Resultantly, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the material available in the case diary and also keeping in view Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities have rightly seized the amount from the husband of the petitioner and unless and until the investigation is carried out and the matter is finally adjudicated, the question of releasing the amount does not arise. The writ petition is dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

Read & Download the Full Decision in pdf: