Confiscation under GST transit controls upheld where notice and record supported intent to evade tax despite interception in transit.

Under the GST transit interception framework, detention and seizure operate separately from confiscation, and the authority may invoke confiscation at the threshold if it records a basis to believe the contravention was with intent to evade tax. Where the record included a show-cause notice and a signed confession letter, the confiscation route was treated as duly invoked, and the proceedings were not invalidated for alleged absence of notice or hearing. A belated claim that signatures were taken on blank papers was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation proceedings and collection of tax, penalty and fine in respect of goods intercepted in transit were lawful and whether the petitioner was entitled to refund on the ground that only detention proceedings under the goods and services tax law had been invoked.

Analysis: The legal framework governing interception of goods in transit comprises the requirements of documents and e-way bill under the transport provisions, and the distinct statutory schemes of detention and seizure on the one hand and confiscation on the other. The Court noted that the two remedies are independent and mutually exclusive, and that confiscation may be invoked at the threshold where the authority records a basis for believing that the contravention was with intent to evade tax. The materials produced by the respondents, including the show-cause notice and the confession letter bearing the petitioner's signature, were accepted as showing that the confiscation route had in fact been invoked and that the subsequent proceedings were not vitiated by absence of notice or hearing. The belated plea that signatures had been obtained on blank papers was not accepted.

Conclusion: The confiscation proceedings were upheld and the challenge based on lack of notice and natural justice failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the impugned action of the tax authorities was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme treats detention and confiscation as independent remedies, a confiscation proceeding initiated with recorded notice and supported by the record will not be invalid merely because the goods were first intercepted in transit.

---