2023 (1) TMI 1128 - HC - GST

Gold ornament transporter loses challenge against Section 130 CGST confiscation proceedings after quantity discrepancy discovered

Sasi Pathirakunnath, Versus Assistant State Tax Officer (Intelligence) Cochin, State Tax Officer (Intelligence) Cochin, State Of Kerala, Commissioner (Gst), Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, New Delhi

Kerala HC dismissed petition challenging confiscation proceedings under Section 130 CGST/SGST Acts. Petitioner transported gold ornaments from Thrissur to ... Confiscation of goods u/s 130 - Levy of penalty - goods in question were supported by valid documents - whether warrant exists for initiation, continuation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts or not? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner was carrying certain gold ornaments in a train from Thrissur to Alleppy. He was initially intercepted by the officials attached to the Railway Protection Force and the 2nd petitioner was able to only shown certain documents on his mobile phone, which according to the petitioners, suggest that the gold ornaments were being carried in a valid manner and in accordance with all the requirements of the CGST/SGST Acts and the Rules made thereunder. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner had forgotten to hand over about 100 gms of gold, which was being carried in his pocket, cannot be accepted, at least at this stage. The fact that there was discrepancy in the quantity in the documents stated to have been produced and the quantity recovered from the 2nd petitioner itself, is sufficient for the Department to suspect the evasion of tax. There are nothing found on merits regarding the order of adjudication issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts for the reason that it would not be proper to do so, considering the fact that the petitioners have appellate remedies against Ext.P18 order. There was no malice or ill-will or lack of jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts - petition dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts was lawful where goods were intercepted by Railway Protection Force and supporting documents were subsequently produced. 2. Whether a quantitative discrepancy between the goods physically recovered and the quantity stated in production documents justifies suspicion of tax evasion and hence warrants initiation of Section 130 proceedings. 3. Whether initiation of proceedings under Section 130 can be attainted for want of jurisdiction, malice or ill-will where documents are produced after initial interception. 4. Whether the Court should decide the merits of the adjudication under Section 130 when effective appellate remedies remain available. 5. Whether exclusion of time for limitation is appropriate where a writ petition challenges Ext.P18 and an appeal may be filed subsequently. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Lawfulness of initiating/concluding Section 130 proceedings despite production of documents after interception Legal framework: Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts empowers seizure and confiscation and provides for proceedings where goods are transported in contravention of the Acts or attempts are made to evade tax; admissible materials at the time of initiation are relevant to the lawfulness of action. Precedent Treatment: The judgment evaluates statutory requirements and fact-situation rather than relying on any specific precedent; prior decisions are not relied upon or overruled in the reasoning. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that at the time of initial interception the detainee could only produce certain documents on a mobile phone which were not satisfactory to RPF. Although fuller documents were produced later by the consignor, the Court emphasised that lawfulness of initiation turns on whether officers had reasonable cause to suspect evasion at the relevant time. The existence of subsequent documents does not retrospectively invalidate earlier reasonable action if facts then available justified involvement of tax authorities. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where, at the time of interception, material available to officers gives rise to reasonable suspicion (even if subsequent documents are later produced), initiation of Section 130 proceedings is not necessarily unlawful. Obiter - Observations that the court has not adjudicated merits of the confiscation order. Conclusion: Initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 130 are not found to be vitiated on the ground that documents were produced after interception; the Court declined to quash Ext.P18 on that basis. Issue 2 - Sufficiency of discrepancy in quantity to justify suspicion of tax evasion Legal framework: The statutory scheme contemplates seizure/confiscation where there is an attempt to evade tax; material discrepancies between declared and recovered quantities bear on the reasonable belief of evasion. Precedent Treatment: No express reliance on external authorities; the Court applies statutory logic to facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The physical verification showed total weight recovered (724.99 gms) materially less than the quantity reflected in the labour invoice and other documents (approximately 825 gms). The Court held that such unexplained discrepancy is sufficient to give the Department cause to suspect evasion. The explanation offered by the detained person (forgetting to hand over ~100 gms in his pocket) was rejected, at least at the prima facie stage, as an afterthought not satisfactorily excluding suspicion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An unexplained quantitative discrepancy between physical recovery and supporting documents can constitute sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion of tax evasion to initiate Section 130 proceedings. Obiter - The Court did not decide whether the discrepancy in fact amounted to illegal sale or evasion on merits. Conclusion: The discrepancy justified the Department's action in initiating proceedings under Section 130; the Court found no defect in that decision on the available facts. Issue 3 - Jurisdictional validity and absence of malice or ill-will in initiating Section 130 proceedings Legal framework: Jurisdictional challenge succeeds where authority acts without jurisdiction, with mala fides, or in contravention of statutory limits; initiation of criminal/statutory proceedings must not be arbitrary. Precedent Treatment: The Court applies general principles of jurisdictional law and fact-based review without invoking or distinguishing specific precedents. Interpretation and reasoning: Considering the undisputed facts (interception, initial inadequate documents, later production, and unexplained quantity discrepancy), the Court found that officers had prima facie material to suspect evasion. No evidence of malice, ill-will or jurisdictional excess was found. The Court expressly refrained from endorsing the substantive merits of the adjudication, limiting its view to the propriety of initiating proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Absence of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction may be negatived where factual materials available to enforcement officers reasonably support initiation of statutory proceedings. Obiter - The Court's non-final view as to merits leaves open further adjudication on appeal. Conclusion: The initiation of Section 130 proceedings was not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction or malice; therefore Ext.P18 was not interfered with on those grounds. Issue 4 - Appropriateness of adjudicating merits when appellate remedies exist Legal framework: Judicial restraint principle; where alternative efficacious statutory remedies (appeal) exist, courts ordinarily avoid adjudicating substantive merits except for limited jurisdictional review. Precedent Treatment: The Court follows the established practice of restraining from deciding merits where an adequate appeal exists (applied as a procedural principle rather than by citing particular cases). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to decide the merits of the adjudication under Section 130 because the petitioners have appellate remedies. The view expressed was restricted to whether there was jurisdictional or mala fide infirmity in initiating proceedings. Petitioners were left to raise all contentions before the appellate authority; the appellate authority was directed to consider the matter uninfluenced by the Court's observations. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where effective appellate remedies are available, the High Court may limit its interference to jurisdictional questions and ordinarily leave substantive issues to the appellate forum. Obiter - The specific invitation to the appellate authority to consider the matter untrammelled is procedural guidance. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petition without deciding the merits and preserved the petitioners' right to appeal and litigate substantive contentions before the appellate authority. Issue 5 - Exclusion of time for limitation for filing appeal Legal framework: Courts may, in appropriate circumstances, direct exclusion/extension of limitation timelines to enable effective exercise of appellate rights where challenge to validity has been pursued in writ and the period has run. Precedent Treatment: The decision applies equitable/relief-oriented principles in granting time exclusion; no separate precedents are cited. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the judgment, the period from the date of issuance of Ext.P18 to the date of judgment shall be excluded for limitation purposes. This direction is aimed at preserving the right to appeal where time has elapsed while the matter was in writ proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Court may exclude a specified period from reckoning limitation where litigation in writ petition has occupied that time and equity requires preservation of appellate rights. Obiter - The Court's direction is case-specific procedural relief. Conclusion: Petitioners were granted a two-week window to file appeal with the specified period excluded from limitation computation; this procedural relief does not affect the substance of Ext.P18 and preserves appellate remedies.