Muhammad Saleem Shemsudeen vs The Enforcement Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 8699 Ker

             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

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

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/