Kerala High Court
P.Ramakrishna Bhattar,S/O. Late ... vs Commissioner Of Central Taxes on 9 October, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
1
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 2053 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 IN W.P(C) NO.35177 OF 2018
----------
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 P.RAMAKRISHNA BHATTAR, S/O.LATE PADMANABHA BHATTAR,
AGED 80 YEARS, 'MANTHRALAYA', KALARCODE,
SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688003.
2 PRABHA RAO, D/O. LATE PADMANABHA BHATTAR,
AGED 80 YEARS, 'SAGARIKA', 109, VIVEKANANDA ROAD,
YADAVGIRI, MAYSORE-570020.
3 KANCHANA R. SHARMA, D/O.LATE P.DEVARAJAN,
AGED 48 YEARS, SRI.GURU NILAYA, 15TH CROSS EXTN.,
NANJANGUD, MAYSORE-571301.
4 ARCHANA PRAVEEN, W/O. LATE PRAVEEN D., AGED 36 YEARS,
CHEMPAKASSERY MADOM, CHANDANAKAVU, PAZHAVEEDU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 009.
5 PRATHAP D., S/O. LATE DEVARAJAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
CHEMPAKASSERY MADOM, CHANDANAKAVU, PAZHAVEEDU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 009.
6 SRIDEVI MOHAN, W/O. LATE P. MOHAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
948, PADMA SREE, 4TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE,
MYSORE-570023.
7 PESHLA MOHAN, D/O. LATE P. MOHAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
948, 'PADMA SREE', 4TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE,
2
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
MYSORE-570023.
8 PRANAV MOHAN, S/O. LATE P. MOHAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
948M PADMA SREE, 4TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE,
MYSORE-570023.
9 PRABHAV MOHAN, S/O. LATE P. MOHAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
948, 'PADMA SREE', 4TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE,
MYSORE-570023.
10 VASANTHI, D/O. LATE PADMANABHA BHATTAR, AGED 72 YEARS,
'RAJ MAHAL APARTMENTS', 26/27, 9TH MAIN, RAJ MAHAL VILAS
EXTN., BENGALURE - 560003.
11 GEETHA NAGARAJAN, W/O. LATE P. NAGARAJAN,
AGED 59 YEARS, CHEMPAKASSERY MADOM, CHANDANAKAVU,
PAZHAVEEDU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 009.
12 POORNIMA N., D/O.LATE P. NAGARAJAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
CHEMPAKASSERY MADOM, CHANDANAKAVU, PAZHAVEEDU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 009.
13 PREMRAJ N., S/O. LATE P. NAGARAJAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
CHEMPAKASSERY MADOM, CHANDANAKAVU, PAZHAVEEDU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 009.
14 P. GANESH BHATTAR, S/O. LATE PADMANABHA BHATTAR,
AGED 69 YEARS, PAPPU GHAR, GUNDI BAIL,
UDUPI - 5761002.
15 LATHA MOHAN NAIR, D/O. LATE PADMANABHA BHATTAR,
AGED 64 YEARS, VETTIKATT, KRA-44, AISWARYA NAGAR
SANATHANAPURAM P.O., KAITHAVANA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 803.
ALL THE ABOVE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
B. LAKSHMIKANTHAN, S/O. LATE K. BHIMA BHATTAR, AGED 68
YEARS, RESIDING AT SRINIVAS, CULLEN ROAD, MULLAKKAL,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.
BY ADV.SHRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
3
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES,
AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS,
I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682018.
2 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),
CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN - 682031.
3 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN -682009.
4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI - 110001.
BY SHRI.V.GIRISH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT
TAXES AND CUSTOMS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2025, THE COURT
ON 09.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
JUDGMENT
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
A quantity of 2186.900 grams of gold/gold ornaments
was seized from the residential/business premises of one late
K.Padmanabha Bhattar way back in the year
1972(20.10.1972). A penalty with reference to the provisions
of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, amounting to Rs.20,000/- was
also imposed. Padmanabha Bhattar is stated to have died on
11.02.1980. One Ganesh Bhattar, who is stated to be one of
the legal heirs of Padmanabha Bhattar, challenged the levy of
penalty before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)
Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras (CEGAT). The
appeal is admittedly allotted with a number of the year 1996
by CEGAT. By Ext.P1 dated 07.06.1996, CEGAT permitted the
appellant before it to redeem the gold in question on payment
of a redemption fine of Rs.40,000/-. The penalty imposed at
Rs.20,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The appellant before
CEGAT was permitted to approach the authority after making
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
payment of the redemption fine of Rs.40,000/- as above.
Admittedly, though certain communications were sent to the
respondents in the matter, the redemption fine was not paid
by the appellant before CEGAT, in spite of Ext.P5
communication dated 18.04.2002 from the Central Excise
Commissioner, Cochin, to that effect. Ultimately, it is
undisputed that the redemption fine and penalty were paid by
the Power of Attorney holder, representing the legal heirs of
the deceased Padmanabha Bhattar, on 25.02.2018, as
evidenced by Ext.P16 demand drafts. However, since the gold
was not handed over to the legal heirs of Padmanabha Bhattar,
they filed W.P(C) No.35177 of 2018, seeking appropriate
directions to release the confiscated gold ornaments/gold
equivalent to the confiscated quantity within a time frame.
2. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the
respondents, essentially pointing out that no one approached
the Department prior to 2001 for the return of the gold
ornaments, that it is only in 2018 that payments are offered,
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
that the gold in question has already been disposed of by
handing over to the Government of India Mint as per the extant
procedure, etc.
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ
petition essentially because the directions issued by CEGAT
were sought to be complied with only after the lapse of more
than 20 years. It is in such circumstances that the appellants
have filed this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958.
4. We have heard Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned
senior counsel for the appellants, as well as Sri.Girish Kumar,
the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents herein.
5. We notice that a penalty was imposed on the
deceased pursuant to an order dated 15.07.1974. The appeal
filed against the said order was also rejected in the year 1975.
A further appeal before CEGAT was instituted in the year 1996
and was also disposed of in the same year, permitting
redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 40,000/-. In other
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
words, in between the date of the original penalty order and
the order of CEGAT, the position of the gold is to be noticed.
The respondents had pointed out before the learned Single
Judge that the gold in question had to be dealt with in
accordance with the extant procedure by handing over the
same to the Government of India Mint. A perusal of the
affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent before us, dated
22.09.2025, shows that the quantity seized as noticed earlier
was sent to the Government of India Mint, Bombay, on
21.03.1983 for minting and conversion into standard bars. It
is further pointed out that the corresponding disposal file could
not be traced out, due to efflux of time. On the basis of this,
the gold value of the seized gold is arrived at Rs.3,93,642/-
with reference to the average market value at the relevant time
(1983). In other words, the gold had already been disposed
of in the year 1983, and therefore, the question of returning
confiscated gold ornaments does not arise at all. We notice that
the afore aspects have not been brought to the notice of CEGAT
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
when it issued Ext.P1 order.
6. We are also of the opinion that, with reference to the
second prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the
respondents to release the "gold equivalent" to the original
confiscated gold, the question of extending such relief arises
only in a situation where the appellants have complied with the
directions issued in Ext.P1 within a reasonable period of time.
This is especially so when in Ext.P1, CEGAT had specifically
ordered that "the appellant should approach the authorities in
this regard after payment of the redemption fine of
Rs.40,000/-". In spite of such direction, we notice that no steps
in that regard have been taken; apart from referring to two
letters at Exts.P2 and P3 addressed to the Department. We
also notice that in Ext.P5 communication dated 18.04.2002,
the appellant before CEGAT, who is one among the appellants
before us, has been specifically informed as under:
"As ordered by CEGAT, Madras, the consequential relief can be
passed only on payment of redemption fine of Rs.40,000/- and
penalty of Rs.15,000/-. However, the goods have since been
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
disposed off by the Department and the refund of sale proceeds
of the same can only be considered. If you have already paid
the RF and Penalty the copy of challan may be produced to this
office. If not, a request may be submitted so that the RF and
Penalty can be deducted from the sale proceeds and balance
refunded to you. You may also produce necessary documents
such as "Succession Certificate", etc. to enable this office to
proceed further as the original petitioner in this case,
Shri.K.Padmanabha Bhattar is no more."
(Underlining supplied)
Thus, the Department was ready to refund the sale proceeds
of the gold upon the payment of the redemption fine/penalty.
The Department was also gracious enough to point out that
they are ready to deduct the redemption fine/penalty from the
sale proceeds of the gold and refund the balance, upon such a
request/confirmation being furnished. However, no steps were
taken in that regard, and it was only in the year 2018 that the
redemption fine/penalty was paid by the Power of Attorney
holder of the appellants before us. In other words, delay and
laches are writ large on the face of the claim/s made by the
appellants before us. It is settled principle that the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
when delay and laches are writ large on the face of the record.
The pleadings in the writ petition do not inspire confidence with
reference to the delay in making a claim in the year 2018, on
the basis of an order issued by CEGAT in the year 1996, with
reference to a seizure under the provisions of the Gold
(Control) Act, in the year 1972, followed by imposition of
penalty in the year 1974.
7. Though the learned senior counsel sought to rely on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Gunwantlal Godawat v.
Union of India and Another[(2018) 12 SCC 309], we are
of the opinion that the principles laid down therein would not
come to the aid of the appellants before us.
8. In Gunwantlal Godawat (supra), the Apex Court
considered a case where some gold was seized in the year
1965 under the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1962,
leading to its confiscation as well as imposition of personal
penalty under the Rules. As appeals to the statutory authorities
were unsuccessful, the matter was carried in appeal before the
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
High Court, and the Rajasthan High Court remanded the matter
to the Collector (Central Excise and Customs). After the remit,
the Collector issued a fresh order in the year 1994, finding that
the quantity of gold (240 kgs) was valued at Rs.11.04 Crores
and granting an option to redeem the gold by paying a fine of
Rs.2.5 Crores. When the matter was carried in appeal, CEGAT
reduced the redemption fine to an amount of Rs.12.5 lakhs
representing the value of the gold as on the date of its seizure.
The Department sought a reference to the High Court, and the
matter was referred by the CEGAT to the High Court,
essentially with respect to the quantum of redemption fine -
whether the same should be with reference to the market value
of the gold as on the date of seizure or the market value of the
gold on the date of adjudication by the authority. The High
Court answered the reference, finding that it is the date of
giving the option, which is relevant for fixing the redemption
fine and not the date of seizure. It is the afore issue that was
considered by the Apex Court, holding that the date on which
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
an option for redemption is made is the relevant date and not
the date of seizure, as rightly found by the High Court. In
other words, we notice that there was no delay or laches, as in
this case, in the case considered by the Apex Court. The Apex
Court, ultimately taking note of the time of nearly 50 years for
arriving at a decision as above with respect to the amount of
redemption fine to be paid, also directed the appellants therein
to satisfy interest on the redemption fine. Therefore, we are
of the opinion that the appellants herein cannot take refuge
under the afore judgment in support of their contentions.
In the light of the afore, we are of the opinion that the
appellants are also not entitled to get the value of the gold
ornaments. However, we note that the appellants, as already
noted, have remitted an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards
redemption fine and another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards
penalty in the year 2018 pursuant to Ext.P1. If the appellants
are not entitled to the return of the gold, as already found
above, then it goes without saying that the payment effected
W.A.No.2053 of 2025 2025:KER:74276
pursuant to Ext. P1 is required to be refunded to the appellants
herein. Hence, while we dismiss this appeal, we order that the
respondents herein shall refund the amount of Rs.40,000/-
paid by the appellants towards redemption fine and
Rs.15,000/- towards penalty, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within a period of three months from today.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
