TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e business of Trading of betel/areca nuts, procured from farmers and registered suppliers. The same is run under the name and style of Biswajit Traders. The petitioner has requisite licence for running such business. In usual course, the petitioner received orders for supply of 17,780 kilograms of betel/areca nuts from one M/s. Poddar Agro, a firm carrying on business at New Delhi. 2. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner with the object of supplying the betel/areca nuts had loaded the same from a godown under the supervision of the godown in-charge and after the loading was complete, the vehicle with the consignment of areca nuts under valid e-way bills commenced its journey from Kolkata to the consignee's address at New Delhi. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lkata to Delhi, the aforesaid allegation made by the respondent no. 5 is entirely unfounded and has no basis. Mr. Bagaria would still further submit by drawing attention of this Court to the seizure memo that the ground for seizure of the goods being the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(b), 111(d) and 121 of the said Act, though Sections 111(b), 111(d) and Section 121 are mutually incongruous. By placing before this Court the provisions of Sections 111(b) and 111(d) and 121, he would submit that if the provisions of Sections 111(b) and 111(d) are invoked, Section 121 has no application. He has also placed before this Court the definition of imported goods and would submit that in the facts of this case, the above seizure mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 since, the importation of areca nuts is not permitted in India. The goods had been smuggled and, as such, Sections 111(b) and 111(d) are attracted which makes the goods liable for confiscation. On such ground the seizure was effective. He would submit that the question whether seizure under Section 110 of the said Act was under a reasonable belief or not though justiciable, however, there is no scope for this Court to enter into the sufficiency of the materials as the same is not open for judicial review. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr., reported in 1987 (29) E.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chikanpara bazar. The aforesaid coupled with the unexplained detour of the petitioner's vehicle and the failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the summons would only support the formation of opinion as recorded by the respondent no. 5 that the goods are areca nuts of foreign origin and are liable to confiscation, though the test reports are yet to arrive. It is true that under Section 121 of the said Act, goods cannot be seized as the language of Section 121 pertains to confiscation of the sale proceeds and not the goods. Be that as it may, a minor mistake or an incorrect invocation of particular section, in the seizure memo in my view, cannot set at naught the finding rendered by the respondent no. 5 as regards his formation ....