Ancillary confiscation powers for tax evasion are constitutionally valid when backed by fair procedure and appeal safeguards

Powers of seizure and confiscation enacted to prevent sales tax evasion can be treated as ancillary to the taxing entry when they operate in aid of effective levy and compliance. The confiscation scheme under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax law is described as constitutionally valid because it is supported by inspection, seizure, hearing, inquiry, and appellate safeguards, and the mere possibility of official abuse does not make the law arbitrary. The notes also record that the confiscation provisions were upheld, while seizure of goods covered by a way-bill was found unjustified on the facts of the individual writ matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sections 28(6) and 29(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, so far as they authorise seizure and confiscation of goods to prevent evasion of sales tax, are within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the confiscation provisions and the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, impose unreasonable restrictions or confer arbitrary power so as to violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether sections 28(6) and 29(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, so far as they authorise seizure and confiscation of goods to prevent evasion of sales tax, are within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to levy tax includes ancillary and incidental powers necessary to make the levy effective and to prevent evasion. The confiscation provisions were treated as measures designed not to impose tax on goods, but to deter evasion and secure compliance with the sales tax law. The Court preferred the view that such confiscatory power is a legitimate ancillary measure in aid of the taxing entry.

Conclusion: The provisions are within legislative competence and are valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation provisions and the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, impose unreasonable restrictions or confer arbitrary power so as to violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The confiscation scheme was supported by a structured procedure involving inspection, seizure, opportunity of hearing, inquiry, and further remedy by appeal. The Court held that the possibility of abuse by officials does not by itself invalidate an otherwise valid law, and that the restriction was aimed at preventing tax evasion and was not shown to be excessive or unguided.

Conclusion: The procedure does not offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) and (g).

Final Conclusion: The confiscation provisions were upheld as valid, but the individual writ petition concerning the 115 bags of jaggery was allowed in part because those bags were covered by the way-bill and their seizure was not justified, while the other writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory powers of seizure and confiscation enacted to prevent evasion of a tax are constitutionally valid when they are ancillary to the taxing entry and are accompanied by a fair procedure, hearing, and appellate safeguards.

---