Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Kanishka Matta vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2020

Author: S.C.Sharma

Bench: Shailendra Shukla, S.C.Sharma

      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Division Bench : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. SHARMA AND
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

                               Writ Petition No.8204/2020

                                  Smt. Kanishka Matta
                                           Vs.
                                Union of India and Others


 Counsel for the Parties           : Shri Vivek Dalal with Shri Lokendra Joshi,
                                     learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                     Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the
                                     respondents.
 Whether approved for              : Yes
 reporting
 Law laid down                     : (1) Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and
                                         Services Tax Act, 2017 empowers the
                                         proper officer not below the rank of Joint
                                         Commissioner to seize goods, documents
                                         or books or things. It also empowers the
                                         proper officer to seize cash / money as
                                         the cash / money is included within the
                                         meaning of term "things" appearing in
                                         Section 67(2).
                                     (2) The word "things" keeping in view its
                                         dictionary meaning includes cash / money
                                         and it is a well settled preposition of law
                                         that in interpreting a statute the court
                                         must adopt that construction which
                                         suppresses the mischief and advances
                                         the remedy. This is a rule laid down in
                                         Heydon's case [(1584) 76 ER 637 : 3 Co
                                         Rep 7a] also known as the rule of
                                         purposive construction or mischief rule.

 Significant paragraph             : 17 to 25
 numbers


                                     O R D E R

(Delivered on this 26th day of August, 2020) (S. C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by Tej Prakash Vyas Date: 2020.08.28 14:43:00 +05'30'