Kerala High Court
Muhammad Saleem Shemsudeen vs The Enforcement Officer on 9 August, 2023
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945
WA NO. 1422 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.7.2023 IN WP(C) 24656/2023 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHEMSUDEEN
AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,INDIAN SCRAP SUPPLIER,
9/172 C1, MUHAMMED ZACHARIYA BUILDING,
KARAVAKKARAN PARAMBIL,KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA., 690515
BY ADV V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, KSGST DEPARTMENT,
ASRAMAM- P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691002
2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER
TAX PAYER SERVICE CIRCLE,
KSGST DEPARTMENT, 6TH FLOOR,REVENUE TOWER, HARIPAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690514
3 THE SECRETARY TO TAXES
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1422/2023 2
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ
............................................................
W.A. No. 1422 of 2023
.............................................................
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
Dr.A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 27.7.2023 in W.P(C) No.24656 of 2023. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
2. The appellant, who is a registered dealer under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (IGST Act) and the State Goods and Service Tax Act (SGST Act), had sold 12860 Kg iron scrap to a GST registered dealer in Goa and the said goods were transported under the cover of an E-way bill in a conveyance bearing Registration No.KL-66-8061. While the consignment was passing through Kayamkulam, on 07.07.2023, it was intercepted and the first respondent served Exts.P6 and P7 notices on the driver for physical verification of the conveyance, the goods and the documents. Three days later, the first respondent issued Ext.P8 report on the physical verification of the conveyance and immediately thereafter issued Ext.P9 notice directing the appellant/petitioner to show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated. Although the petitioner W.A.No.1422/2023 3 submitted Ext.P10 reply to the show cause notice, the first respondent issued Ext.P12 confiscation order confiscating the conveyance and the goods.
3. The appellant herein impugned Ext.P12 confiscation order before the writ court in the writ petition aforementioned. The main contention in the writ petition was that the respondents were obliged to proceed sequentially through the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act before confiscating the goods under Section 130 of the Act since the provisions were dependent upon each other. The said submission did not, however, find favour with the learned Single Judge who found that the provisions of Section 130 were independent and could be invoked separately without invoking Section 129 of the Act. Inasmuch as an order had been passed by the first respondent under Section 130, the learned Judge found that the said order being an appealable one the appellant had to be relegated to his alternate remedy of approaching the appellate authority under the GST Act.
4. We have heard Sri. Devananda Narasimham V., the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. M.M. Jasmine, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference since it is well settled that the provisions under Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions and there is no requirement in law that the proceedings under Section 130 should be preceded by the proceedings under Section 129. We also note that, at any rate, Ext.P12 order passed by the first respondent permits the appellant to seek a release of the goods and the conveyance on payment of penalties and fine W.A.No.1422/2023 4 within a period of fourteen days from the date of the order. We are of the view that this provision should suffice for the appellant to obtain an immediate release of the goods and conveyance, pending final disposal of the appeal that he may prefer against Ext.P12 order before the appellate authority.
The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE okb/