2025(02)LCX0302

Ashok Parasuram Uthale

Versus

The Intelligence Officer

WP(C) NO. 5467 OF 2025 decided on 20-02-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMA

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946

WP(C) NO. 5467 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

ASHOK PARASURAM UTHALE
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LATE PARASURAM VISHNU UTHALE,
FROM YETGOAN@POST, KADEGOAN TALUK,
SANGLI DIST., MAHARASHTRA,
RESIDING AT SACHIN NIVAS, AYIROOR,
VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695141

BY ADVS.
SIVANKUTTY S.
S.SURESH BABU (CHERUNNIYOOR)

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE UNIT-II,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
CHIRAKKARA PALACE, KAIMANAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695018

2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE UNIT-I,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
5TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695002

3 THE COMMISSIONER
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695002

4 THE COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX,
MAHATMA GANDHI FLYOVER,
RAMA KRISHNA PURAM, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110066

BY ADVS

JASMIN M.M,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER

V.GIRISH KUMAR,
STANDING COUNSEL

    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C). No. 5467 of 2025

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2025

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P3 notice and also seeks for a direction to provisionally return the gold seized, pursuant to Exhibit-P1 on the basis of a bank guarantee and bond to be furnished by him.

2. Petitioner claims to be a traditional goldsmith originally hailing from Maharashtra. According to him, 20 years back, he came to Kerala as an ‘immigrant job seeker’ and along with his brothers, is now carrying on job work of melting, cutting, polishing and purification of gold ornaments at Varkala. Petitioner alleges that on 28.12.2023, the 2nd respondent inspected and searched his shop and residence under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the GST Act’) and seized 3522.14 gms of gold with certain records and issued a seizure receipt. Subsequently, petitioner was summoned before the 1st respondent for enquiry. According to the petitioner, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 67 of the GST Act expired after six months, and hence, the goods are liable to be released on bond. Petitioner also submits that in the meantime, Exhibit-P3 notice under Section 130 of the GST Act has been issued, calling upon him to show cause why the seized gold should not be confiscated. Petitioner filed a reply, and no orders have been passed thereafter and hence the writ petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the time limit prescribed under Section 67 of GST Act was extended by an order issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax on 22.06.2024 as per the proviso to the said Section, and therefore, the claim for provisional release of the goods is not legally sustainable, more so in the light of proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the GST Act. The copy of the order was handed over across the Bar.

4. On an appreciation of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the order dated 22.06.2024, it is evident that the time limit for completing the investigation has been extended in exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 67 of the Act. Hence, the contention of the petitioner based on the limitation prescribed under Section 67 of the GST Act is not legally tenable.

5. Apart from the above, a perusal of Exhibit-P3 notice of confiscation indicates that, on verification of the registers recovered from the petitioner’s shop/residence, it was prima facie observed that he had carried out sale of old gold worth Rs.47.73 Crores, without having any valid GST registration and that majority of the gold were procured from another entity and supplied to another jewellery without the support of any tax invoice/other relevant documents as mandated by the Goods and Services Tax statutes.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provision under Section 67 (6) of the GST Act for release of the goods on provisional basis, I am of the view that since the proceeding under Section 130 of the GST Act has already been initiated by the issuance of Exhibit-P3 notice, release of the goods under sub-clause 6 of Section 67 of the GST Act will not arise. That stage is already over and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had sought to avail the benefit of Section 67 (6) of the GST Act prior to Exhibit-P3 order.

7. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am of the view that the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 cannot prima facie be said to be without any authority. It is for the petitioner to participate in the said proceedings. Based upon the orders to be passed thereon, appropriate proceedings can be initiated.

8. In the meantime, if in case petitioner seeks release of the goods that are the subject matter of confiscation proceedings, certainly, the statute provides for a remedy under Section 130 (2) of the GST Act.

9. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to have recourse to Section 130 (2) of the GST Act during the pendency of the proceedings, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-                
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE