Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with powers of inspection, search, and seizure of officers and Section 67(2) specifically empowers the officers carrying out an inspection to seize goods and documents. Courts have arrived at divergent interpretations as to whether the power to seize goods and documents includes the power to seize cash – unaccounted or otherwise. Relying on the interpretive principle of ejusdem generis and the objective of GST laws, some Courts have held that power to seize goods includes power to seize cash while some Courts – relying on similar factors – have concluded otherwise.
Short Profile of Section 67
Section 67, CGST Act, 2017 states that where a proper officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction in relation to supply of goods or services, or has claimed ITC more than his entitlement or has engaged in the business of transporting of goods in a manner that has caused or is likely to cause tax evasion, he may authorize any officer of central tax to inspect places of business of such taxable person. Section 67(2) along with the two Provisos states as follows:
Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things:
Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer:
Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under this Act. (emphasis added)
The specific question that Courts have have faced is: whether cash is a ‘thing’ and can be seized by officers while carrying out inspections under Section 67? The text of Section 67 does not provide any definitive answer as it does not mention the word ‘money’ and the only way to include money in the scope of Section 67 is through a process of interpretation. While some Courts have relied on the definition of money, as included in CGST Act, 2017, this interpretive approach has not provided a definitive answer to the scope of Section 67 and the power of officers under the said provision.
Cash is a ‘Thing’
The Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to the definitions of ‘consideration’, ‘business’, ‘money’ among others to hold that the term ‘thing’ used in Section 67 includes money. The High Court’s reasoning was that definitions are the key to unlock the objective of CGST Act, 2017. The High Court though never specifically articulated as to what objective of GST laws was served by allowing officers to seize cash belonging to a taxable person. The High Court further tried to reason that a statute must be interpreted in a manner that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. Again, here the High Court did not clearly state the mischief and remedy in question. Is the mischief tax evasion? And if so, is it warranted to rely on inconclusive definitions to interpret a provision which provides invasive powers to tax officers?
The Kerala High Court akin to the Madhya Pradesh High Court also opined that Section 67(2) allows for seizure of cash including things under certain circumstances. However, the Kerala High Court took a different view of the objective of GST and observed that:
The power of any authority to seize any ‘thing’ while functioning under the provisions of a taxing statute must be guided and informed in its exercise by the object of the statute concerned. In an investigation aimed at detecting tax evasion under the GST Act, we fail to see how cash can be seized especially when it is the admitted case that the cash did not form part of the stock in trade of the appellant’s business.
The Kerala High Court added that the intelligence officer’s argument that there was huge amount of idle cash at the petitioner’s premises and it wasn’t deposited in the bank reveals the misgivings that officers have of their powers under GST laws. The High Court added that such arguments were only valid if the officer was attached to the Income Tax Department.
The above two decisions show how two High Courts are at odds as to their understanding of the objective of GST. While the Madhya Pradesh High Court reasoned that seizure of cash would serve the object of GST, the Kerala High Court opined that seizure of cash will not serve the purpose of detecting GST evasion especially if it is not part of stock in trade of the taxable person. Both High Courts are at fault in not specifically articulating the object of GST laws. Invoking the ‘object’ of GST laws in abstract and in general terms is not the best interpretive approach and is in fact erroneous. It is not prudent to assume that GST laws have only one objective. One could perhaps argue that inspection and seizure have one overarching objective, i.e., to ensure collection of the tax due and compliance with statutory provisions. But, surely, that is not the ‘only’ object of GST. To argue or even pre-suppose that the only object of GST is to facilitate maximum tax collection is a reductive view of tax laws.
Further, it is important to highlight that the Kerala High Court casually concluded that Section 67 allows seizure of things including cash without specifically examining the text of the provision and its scope. The principles of strict interpretation of tax statutes were given a complete bypass by the Kerala High Court in observing that cash can be seized under Section 67.
Cash is Not a ‘Thing’
At the other end of spectrum are two decisions of the Delhi High Court. The first case, also discussed here, relied on three major factors to conclude that cash is not included in the term ‘thing’ used in Section 67. The Delhi High Court observed that while Section 67 uses the term ‘goods’ which was a wide term, the caveat in the provision was that they should be liable for confiscation. Goods should be the subject matter or suspected to be subject matter of evasion of tax. Similarly, documents, books or things can be confiscated if in the opinion of the officer they shall be used or are relevant to any proceedings under the Act.
The Delhi High Court highlighted the drastic nature of the powers of search and seizure and the need to adopt purposive interpretation. The High Court observed that powers under Section 67 have only been given to aid proceedings under CGST Act, 2017 and cash cannot be seized in exercise of powers under Section 67 on the ground that it represents unaccounted wealth. And that unaccounted wealth is the subject matter of IT Act, 1961.
In the second case, the Delhi High Court also made similar observations and held that if there is no evidence that cash represents sale proceeds of unaccounted goods it cannot be seized under Section 67 of CGST Act, 2017. And that CGST Act does not permit the coercive action of forcibly taking cash from the premises of another person.
The Delhi High Court’s approach is founded on sounder reasoning as it not only highlights the drastic and intrusive nature of powers of inspection, but also specifically identifies the purpose of these powers. To aid investigation under CGST Act, 2017 cash can be seized but only if represents the sale of unaccounted goods or a related offence under the statute. Cash cannot be seized merely because it is unaccounted income or wealth, which is the subject matter of IT Act ,1961.
Way Forward
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s reasoning to support its conclusion that ‘thing’ includes ‘money’ lacks potency especially because of the High Court’s ignorance of the dictum that tax laws need to be interpreted strictly. By relying on definitions and other provisions, the High Court interpreted the scope of Section 67 which is not ideal. And unlike the Delhi High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not acknowledge the drastic nature of inspection and seizure powers and how in trying to suppress the mischief of tax evasion it is empowering tax officers beyond what the law specifically states. And any reliance on purposive interpretation is only defensible if the purpose of the statute and/or provision is clearly articulated and the interpretation is to suit that purpose. Reference to abstract objective of the statute is not helpful and leaves a lot to be desired. On balance, the approach adopted by the Delhi High Court – in both its decisions on the issue – is well-reasoned, pragmatic and hopefully will form the bedrock of jurisprudence in future.