Conscious possession in gold confiscation requires reasoned treatment of criminal findings; failure to do so justified remand.

Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act depended on conscious possession, so the Tribunal was required to consider the criminal court's finding that the assessee was not in conscious possession of the gold slabs and rods. Because that finding went to the foundation of both prosecution and confiscation, the Tribunal's failure to address it and give reasons for sustaining confiscation rendered its order unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The objection based on an alternative statutory remedy was not accepted, as the writ petition had been admitted long earlier and had remained pending for years. The Tribunal's order was set aside and all contentions were kept open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in confirming confiscation and penalty without considering the criminal court's finding that the assessee was not in conscious possession of the 12 gold slabs and 13 gold rods; (ii) Whether the writ petition should fail on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal erred in confirming confiscation and penalty without considering the criminal court's finding that the assessee was not in conscious possession of the 12 gold slabs and 13 gold rods.

Analysis: The confiscation and prosecution arose from the same search and seizure, involved the same basic facts, and turned on the same question of possession. The criminal court had held that, although the articles were primary gold, the assessee was not in conscious possession of the gold slabs and gold rods. Conscious possession was the foundation both for prosecution and for confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal failed to address this finding at all, though it was specifically raised before it, and did not give reasons for sustaining confiscation despite the criminal court's conclusion.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order could not stand and the matter had to be remanded for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should fail on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: Although a reference remedy was available under the Gold (Control) Act, the writ petition had already been admitted long ago and remained pending for many years. In these circumstances, the objection based on alternative remedy was not accepted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not rejected on the ground of alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for fresh decision, with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act depends on conscious possession, a Tribunal must expressly consider a criminal court's finding on that very issue and give reasons if it chooses to depart from it; failure to do so warrants remand.

---