Authorised confiscation under section 130 upheld; writ relief declined because an effective statutory appeal was available.

An officer authorised to conduct inspection, search and seizure may validly pass a confiscation and penalty order under section 130 when the impugned order is founded on that authorisation; the objection that the same officer acted in the proceeding was rejected, and the principle against a person being a judge in his own cause was held inapplicable on the stated facts. Where the confiscation order is appealable, the availability of an effective statutory remedy weighs against writ intervention. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the officer who was authorised to conduct inspection, search and seizure could pass the confiscation and penalty order under section 130; (ii) Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an appealable statutory remedy was available.

Issue (i): Whether the officer who was authorised to conduct inspection, search and seizure could pass the confiscation and penalty order under section 130.

Analysis: The authorisation for inspection, search and seizure was issued to the same officer, and the order impugned was passed on the basis of that authorisation under section 130. The challenge that the officer lacked authority to pass the final order was rejected, since the power exercised was treated as falling within the competence attached to the authorised proceeding. The principle that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause was held inapplicable on the facts, particularly as the order was not one under the assessment provisions referred to by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The challenge to the officer's competence failed and the order under section 130 was not held to be without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an appealable statutory remedy was available.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to be appealable, and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy weighed against writ intervention. The petitioner was left free to pursue the appropriate remedy before the competent authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to avail the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined writ interference, upheld the competence of the authorised officer to pass the confiscation order, and left the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of confiscation under section 130 passed by an officer duly authorised for inspection, search and seizure is not without jurisdiction merely because the same officer conducted the search, and writ relief may be declined where an effective statutory appeal is available.

---