Case Law Details
Jamaludin Vs Commissioner of State Tax (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of 380 bags of arecanut and a commercial vehicle seized by GST authorities and declined to interfere with proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner claimed to be the proprietor of a registered business engaged in aggregation, trading, and interstate dispatch of arecanut. The petition sought quashing of proceedings initiated through FORM GST DRC-01 dated 09.05.2026 and FORM GST MOV-10 dated 07.05.2026, release of the seized goods and vehicle, and several alternative reliefs relating to adjudication under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also alleged coercion in recording a statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act and sought an independent inquiry into the conduct of GST officers.
The Government Pleader opposed the writ petition and referred to an earlier judgment of the High Court in W.P.(C) No.1984 of 2026, where proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the same subject matter had already been challenged. In that earlier case, the High Court rejected the petitioner’s contentions while preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue statutory remedies. The Government Pleader also pointed out that the petitioner’s writ appeal against the earlier judgment had been dismissed by the Division Bench, which confirmed the findings of the Single Judge with clarification that the observations applied only to the petitioner and not to any other person who might claim rights over the seized articles.
The High Court observed that the clarification made by the Division Bench related to the transporter through whom the seized articles were transported. The Court noted that proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act had already been challenged in the earlier round of litigation and that the petitioner’s challenge had been rejected after consideration of the factual circumstances surrounding the initiation of proceedings. Those findings were subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench.
The Court further noted that the present proceedings arose after issuance of a notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act and that the notice itself was under challenge in the writ petition. After examining the petitioner’s contentions, the Court held that almost all the issues raised involved disputed factual matters that had already been considered and rejected in the earlier proceedings.
The High Court also held that the notice under Section 130 was only a notice of inquiry and that the petitioner was required to raise objections before the statutory authority and cooperate with the proceedings. The Court referred to observations made in the earlier judgment regarding serious discrepancies in the petitioner’s transactions, which formed the basis for initiation of proceedings. Finding no justifiable reason to interfere at that stage, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is claiming to be the proprietor of a registered business concern engaged in the aggregation, trading, and interstate dispatch of arecanut. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:
“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Ext.P1 (FORM GST DRC-01 dated 09.05.2026) and Ext.P2 (FORM GST MOV-10 dated 07.05.2026), and all proceedings, orders, and actions taken pursuant thereto;
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to forthwith release the consignment of 380 bags of arecanut (24,700 Kg.) and the commercial conveyance bearing Registration No. TN 40 R 9159 to the Petitioner or his authorised representative, unconditionally or subject to such conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit (including furnishing of bank guarantee or security for the assessed tax and penalty);
iii. In the alternative to Relief (ii) and without prejudice thereto, if this Hon’ble Court is pleased to permit the Respondents to proceed with Section 130 adjudication, direct that: (a) the adjudication shall be conducted by a fresh and independent officer not connected with Respondent No. 3 or the present investigation; (b) the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 70 on 08.01.2026 shall not be relied upon against the Petitioner in the said proceedings, pending independent adjudication of the allegation of coercion; (c) the adjudication shall be completed within 30 days of the date of this Court’s order; and (d) the goods shall be released to the Petitioner forthwith upon furnishing security as this Court may quantify;
iv. Declare that the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act on 08.01.2026, having been obtained through coercion, duress, and explicit threats, is void, inadmissible, and of no legal or evidentiary value, and that the Petitioner’s contemporaneous retraction is valid and effective;
v. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to cause an independent inquiry – by an officer senior to and not connected with Respondent No. 3 – into the allegations of coercive interrogation, unlawful seizure of mobile phone, explicit threats to the Petitioner’s wife, and premature media disclosure perpetrated by Respondents No. 3 and 4, and to submit a report to this Hon’ble Court within 30 days;
vi. grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just, and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; and
vii. allow this Writ Petition with costs to the Petitioner.”
2. The learned Government Pleader opposed the reliefs sought in the writ petition and brought to the attention of this Court Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P(C) No.1984 of 2026 filed by the petitioner, challenging the proceeding already initiated against the petitioner, touching upon the very same subject matter. As per the said judgment, the contentions raised by the petitioner was rejected, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies. It is also pointed out that, even though the petitioner had taken up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench, as per Ext.P7, the said writ appeal was also dismissed confirming the judgment passed by this Court, with a clarification that, the observations made therein are confined only to the petitioner herein and not to any other person, who may have the right to claim the articles as per law. Thus the learned Government Pleader seeks the dismissal of the writ petition.
3. I have carefully gone through the records. It is evident from the observations made in Ext.P7 judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court that, the observations regarding the confinement of the findings upon the appellant and non applicability of the same to any other person, are apparently referring to the transporter through whom, the articles seized by the respondents, were transported. The proceedings which are initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act, were already challenged before this Court as per the writ petition in the earlier round of litigation and this Court, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and the factual circumstances under which such proceedings are initiated, rejected those contentions without prejudice to the statutory remedies available to the petitioner. The said findings have already been confirmed by the Division Bench as well. Now as part of further proceedings, notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act has been issued to the petitioner and the proceedings in connection with the same are in progress. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. After carefully going through the contentions raised by the petitioner, I am of the view that, almost all the contentions are touching upon the factual matters of the dispute, which are already taken into account by this Court in Ext.P6 and rejected the challenge raised by the petitioner against the same. Moreover, as far as the notice under challenge in this writ petition is concerned, it is only a notice of inquiry, and it is for the petitioner to raise all his objections before the statutory authority by cooperating with the same. In Ext P6 judgment, this court found certain serious discrepancies in the transactions carried out by the petitioner, based on which, the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner.
Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the said proceeding at this point of time.
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Author Bio
