High Court Rules: GST Authorities Cannot Seize Cash from Business Premises—Key Takeaways for Taxpayers
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that GST authorities lack the power to seize cash from a business premise unless it forms part of stock-in-trade. The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and addresses the validity of cash seizures and interdepartmental transfers under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 132A). This decision provides clarity to businesses and tax professionals regarding the legality of GST investigations and enforcement actions.
Case Overview
Case Title: Centre C Edtech (P.) Ltd. vs. Intelligence Officer, State GST Department, Kerala
Key Legal Questions:
- Can GST authorities legally seize cash from a business premise under Section 74 of the CGST Act?
- Does a subsequent transfer of the cash to the Income Tax Department under Section 132A validate the original seizure?
Facts of the Case
- GST authorities conducted proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act and seized Rs. 39,70,760 from a service provider’s premises.
- The cash was later handed over to the Income Tax Department based on a requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- The taxpayer challenged the seizure, arguing that GST officers have no power to seize cash unless it forms part of business stock.
Court’s Key Observations & Ruling
1. GST Authorities Cannot Seize Cash Unless It Is Stock-in-Trade
- The court ruled that under Section 74 of the CGST Act, GST authorities cannot seize cash unless it is explicitly part of the stock-in-trade of the business.
- Seizures are restricted to goods, documents, or other things under the law.
- This aligns with the principles of Article 265 & Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, which prohibit unauthorized deprivation of property.
2. Transfer to Income Tax Department Does Not Validate the Seizure
- The subsequent transfer of the cash to the Income Tax Department under Section 132A of the IT Act did not retroactively validate the illegal seizure.
- Illegally seized property cannot be retained or transferred based on procedural formalities.
3. Courts Can Order Release of Illegally Seized Amounts
- The court ordered the immediate release of Rs. 39,70,760 back to the taxpayer within 10 days.
- Both GST and Income Tax Departments were directed to continue their independent proceedings, but without treating the cash seizure as a legally valid action.
Legal Implications and Section-Wise Analysis
1. Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017
- Deals with determination of tax liability on account of fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation.
- However, it does not empower authorities to seize cash from a business unless it is stock-in-trade.
2. Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017
- Provides the power to inspect, search, and seize goods and documents.
- Does not authorize the seizure of cash, strengthening the court’s ruling.
3. Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Allows the Income Tax Department to requisition assets during investigations.
- The court ruled that this cannot be used to legitimize an initial illegal seizure by another department.
4. Articles 265 & 300A of the Constitution of India
- Article 265: No tax can be levied or collected except by the authority of law.
- Article 300A: No person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.
- The court reaffirmed that the GST Department violated these constitutional safeguards.
Key Takeaways for Businesses and Tax Authorities
For Businesses & Taxpayers:
✔ GST officers cannot seize cash unless it is proven to be stock-in-trade. ✔ If your cash is seized unlawfully, you can challenge the seizure in court. ✔ Even if cash is transferred to another department, courts can order its return. ✔ Always maintain proper books of accounts to substantiate cash holdings.
For GST & Tax Authorities:
✔ Must adhere to legal provisions and avoid exceeding their statutory powers. ✔ Should only seize goods or documents explicitly allowed under the law. ✔ Should not assume that interdepartmental transfers validate illegal seizures. ✔ Follow due process under Section 74 for fraud investigations without overreach.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Centre C Edtech (P.) Ltd. vs. GST Intelligence Officer sets a crucial precedent for taxpayers and GST authorities alike. By clarifying the limits of seizure powers under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the court has reaffirmed constitutional protections against arbitrary confiscation of property. Businesses should be aware of their legal rights in tax investigations and seek judicial intervention if their property is seized unlawfully.
This judgment is a landmark decision reinforcing taxpayer protections and ensuring that tax enforcement is carried out within constitutional and legal boundaries.
Read more: GST Appeal Limitation Strict: No Extension Beyond Statutory Limit, Limitation Act Not Applicable