Dismissed¶36

Y. Balakrishnan v. the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Squad, Kollam

Kerala HC21 Mar 2025WA/546/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA 546/2025 Kerala HC Ernakulam 21-03-2025, Y. Balakrishnan (Onam Beedi Company) v Enforcement Officer SGST Kollam and others; writ appeal dismissed; judgment dated 28.2.2025 in WP(C) 30274/2024 not interfered with; Section 130 Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 confiscation of 10 bags of beedies; e-way bill, e-invoice, GST portal, IGST paid, deviation of route; denial of cross-examination of third-party statements; principles of natural justice; disputed questions of fact; relegation to statutory appellate remedy; discretionary writ jurisdiction declined.

What did the court decide?

There is no merit in the appeal: the appellant's contentions on generation of e-way bills, invoices and remittance of GST and IGST revolve on adjudication of disputed questions of facts. ¶32

Y. Balakrishnan Vs the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

WA No.546 of 2025 1 2025:KER:24736

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WA NO. 546 OF 2025

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2025 IN WP(C) NO.30274 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶11

Y. BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 53 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, ONAM BEEDI COMPANY, 1/395,
THAYYILRAMAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN690508
RESIDING AT IV/1305, MAIN ROAD, VALLOM,
THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 628009

¶12

BY ADVS.
K.SRIKUMAR (SR.)
AMMU CHARLES
K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶14

1 THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, KOLLAM,SGST DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691002

¶15

2 THE ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, KOLLAM, SGST DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691002

¶16

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, 9TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002

¶17

WA No.546 of 2025 2 2025:KER:24736

¶18

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶19

5 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER GST, GST POLICY WING, NO.503, B WING, 5TH FLOOR, CBIC, HUDCOVISHALA BUILDING, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R. K. PURAM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066

¶20

6 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, RAJPATH MARG, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶21

SRI. V. GIRISHKUMAR-SC,
SRI. R. HARISHANKAR- DSGI

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2025,

¶23

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WA No.546 of 2025 3 2025:KER:24736

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Easwaran S., J.

¶27

This intra court appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.2.2025 in W.P.(C) No.30274 of 2024. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

¶28

The appellant approached the writ court challenging a notice for confiscation of goods issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the Act’, for short). The Single Bench, who considered the writ petition at the admission stage, did not grant any interim relief and therefore, the proceedings before the statutory authority continued and culminated in the order of confiscation. The writ petition was subsequently amended and the final order of adjudication was also challenged. Before the Single Bench, it was contended by the appellant that the order of confiscation was passed without any authority of law inasmuch as no ingredients for confiscation of the goods under Section 130 of the Act has been made out. The petitioner had generated an e-invoice and e-way bill for the supply of 10 bags of beedies to M/s Alna Stores at Thiruvalla. These documents were uploaded in the GST Portal also. It was contended that, at the time of interception, the goods were covered by proper invoices and e-way bills and that, the IGST on the transaction has already been paid, which is already on the radar of

¶29

WA No.546 of 2025 4 2025:KER:24736

¶30

GST network and therefore the confiscation of the goods and the conveyance merely for the reason of a deviation in the route, was without authority. It was further contended that the final order of adjudication was vitiated since no opportunity to cross examine the statements which were obtained from the 3^rd parties was given by the proper officer. The learned Single Judge who considered the writ petition found that the adjudication on merits would necessarily involves adjudication of the disputed questions on fact and therefore relegated the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act.

¶31

Heard Sri. K.Srikumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Smt.Ammu Charles, Sri. G Girish Kumar the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, Sri.R.Harishankar, the learned DSGI appearing for the 6^th respondent and Smt. Resmitha Ramachandran the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State respondents 1 to 4.

¶32

On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal. The contention of the appellant/writ petitioner revolves on the adjudication of the disputed questions of facts inasmuch as the contention is pointed towards the generation of e-way bills, invoices and also remittance of GST and also IGST. The further contention that the cross examination of the 3^rd parties, whose statements were recorded by the proper officer while passing the final order of adjudication, was not extended to the

¶33

WA No.546 of 2025 5 2025:KER:24736

¶34

appellant also does not impress us since it is open for the appellant to raise this contention before the appellate authority.

¶35

We find that the question as to whether the final adjudication order is vitiated for want of compliance of principles of natural justice is also a point which could be raised before the appellate and the appellate authority is also empowered to go into the said question and pass appropriate orders. The assertion of the appellant that no reasons are warranted for confiscation of the goods is essentially a disputed question of facts which has to be adjudicated by the appellate authority. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. We are of the view that inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has not thought it fit to exercise his discretion and entertain the writ petition, we need not interfere with the said judgment in an intra-court appeal.

¶36

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the writ appeal lacks merit, and the same is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/ -

¶38

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶39

Sd/EASWARAN S.

¶40

NS JUDGE

Y. Balakrishnan v. the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Squad, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Balakrishnan v. the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Squad, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs K. Vasanthakumari

K.Vasanthakumari Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Vasanthakumari

R.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs the Tahsildar, Karunagappally Taluk

State of Kerala Vs P. Raju

The State of Kerala Vs *Subramaniyan Asari