Court Upholds Confiscation Order under GST Act | Appeal Remedy Emphasized

The court upheld the order of confiscation under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, based on the Proper Officer's satisfaction regarding the absence of mandatory documents and intention to evade tax. It emphasized that disputed factual questions should be addressed through the appellate authority, not under Article 226, to maintain the Act's integrity. The court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the availability of the appeal remedy under section 107 of the Act and the importance of not interfering with the Proper Officer's satisfaction when supported by transaction circumstances.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Detention and confiscation of gold ornaments without mandatory documents; Interpretation of intention to evade tax; Validity of order of confiscation; Consideration of satisfaction of Proper Officer; Availability of remedy of appeal under section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer in gold jewellery, challenged the proceedings initiated under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was found carrying gold ornaments without mandatory documents, leading to their detention and subsequent confiscation. The order of confiscation was challenged in a writ petition, along with a final intimation to remit the demanded amount failing which further steps to sell the confiscated gold ornaments would be initiated. The petitioner contended that there was no intention to evade tax, citing a previous decision. The Senior Government Pleader argued against interference, highlighting the availability of an appeal remedy under section 107 of the Act.

The court considered the contentions of both parties. The order of confiscation endorsed the Proper Officer's satisfaction regarding the absence of mandatory documents and the intention to evade tax. The court noted that the finding of fact regarding the intention to evade tax was based on the circumstances and could not be interfered with under Article 226 unless perverse. The court emphasized that disputed factual questions should be addressed through the appellate authority, not under Article 226. The court held that interference in the Proper Officer's satisfaction, supported by transaction circumstances, would affect the Act's scheme. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the court upheld the order of confiscation based on the Proper Officer's satisfaction regarding the absence of mandatory documents and the intention to evade tax. The court emphasized the need to address disputed factual questions through the appellate authority and not under Article 226. The court's decision highlighted the importance of not interfering with the Proper Officer's satisfaction when supported by transaction circumstances to maintain the Act's integrity. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the order of confiscation and emphasizing the availability of the appeal remedy under section 107 of the Act.

---