The Division Bench held that the power of seizure under Section 67(2) operates in respect of two categories only — goods liable to confiscation and documents, books or things useful for proceedings — and cash falls in neither, since the legislature has consciously excluded money from the definition of goods and has not conferred on GST authorities the power to seize currency that Parliament has expressly granted in the Income Tax Act and the Customs Act.
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of ₹47,45,000 in cash seized from the residential premises of a cigarette trader during search proceedings under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, holding that the statutory power of seizure does not extend to currency and that the seizure was without authority of law [Bhagwan Tirthani and Others v. Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur and Others].
During search proceedings conducted on 22 November 2022, CGST officers seized 2,33,300 cigarettes valued at ₹18,67,690 from the shop and godown premises, along with cash of ₹47,45,000 from the residential premises of the first petitioner. The Order-in-Original dated 11 June 2024 treated the cash as sale proceeds of unaccounted cigarettes sold without tax invoices and ordered confiscation under Section 130(1). The first petitioner's appeal under Section 107 was pending. The writ petition was confined to the legality of the seizure and retention of cash.
Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar conducted a granular statutory analysis. Under Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, "goods" means every kind of movable property "other than money and securities." "Money" is separately defined under Section 2(75). The exclusion is express and deliberate. Cash, therefore, cannot be treated as "goods liable to confiscation" under the first limb of Section 67(2). The Court then examined whether cash could fall within the second limb — "documents or books or things" — and held that it cannot. Applying the ejusdem generis principle, the words "documents" and "books" are inherently evidentiary in character, and the expression "things" following them must take colour from those associated expressions. It cannot be construed as an unlimited residuary power enabling seizure of every movable asset. The second proviso to Section 67(2) confirms this evidentiary character by permitting retention of documents, books or things only for "examination" and "inquiry."
The Court drew a critical contrast with the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Customs Act, 1962. Section 132(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act expressly authorises seizure of "books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing" — with "money" separately and expressly named. Section 2(22) of the Customs Act expressly includes "currency and negotiable instruments" within the definition of "goods." The omission of any comparable reference to money, cash or currency in Section 67 of the CGST Act is, the Court held, legally significant and cannot be judicially supplied. The Court expressly agreed with the Bombay High Court's ruling in Smurti Waghdhare v. Joint Director, DGGI [2026-juristway.com-706-HC(Bombay)-GST] and the Delhi High Court's decision in Deepak Khandelwal v. Commissioner of CGST [2023-juristway.com-1549-HC(Delhi)-GST], and declined to follow the contrary view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanishka Matta v. Union of India [2020-juristway.com-692-HC(MP-Indore)-GST]. The respondents were directed to release the cash with applicable interest within six weeks.
2026-juristway.com-2903-HC(Rajasthan)-GST | High Court of Rajasthan
