Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 322 (KER)

P. H. ABDUL RAZAK v. STATE OF KERALA

1995-09-29

V.V.KAMAT

body1995
JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. In this petition the notice (exhibit P3) issued under section 30C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is impugned. 2. The main or rather the only question for consideration is the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The statutory provision of section 30C relates to cashewnuts as specified in the items therein. If the officer has reason to believe that a vehicle is used for smuggling the said article, it empowers him the seizure not only of the article but also of the vehicle in question. 4. For the above purpose the factual matrix as prayed for in the context of the notice would require consideration. 5. On September 15, 1995, the Sales Tax Inspector of the sales tax check-post, Walayar, has recorded that even though the checking token was issued the vehicle was not brought for physical verification and it was found parked beyond the check-post. When attempt was made by the driver of the vehicle to drive away the vehicle to Tamil Nadu it has been intercepted by the police. It is seen further that on physical verification it was found that the vehicle was carrying 110 bags of cashewnuts inspite of the fact that the goods declared as per rule 27 were not cashewnuts but 3 M. tons of plantains transported from Pulayampatty to Palakkad. These aroused the suspicion as it was found at the place of the border at the check-post to the effect that the raw cashewnuts were clandestinely transported and the vehicle with the goods were handed over for examination. 6. It is also mentioned in the notice that certain enquiries were made and it was found that the vehicle was carrying another set of GVR of M/s. Sri Lakshmy Srinivasa Traders, Tallpudi, relating to the transport of 9 M. tons of tamarind seeds. In addition thereto an amount of cash of Rs. 30,000 was also recovered from the cabin of the vehicle. It is on the basis of these facts that reasonable belief was recorded that the commodity of 110 bags of cashewnuts was being transported without any documents being available with the driver of the vehicle. 7. The provisions of the said section (section 30C) is a special provision in the matter of a reasonable belief with regard to the smuggling activity of the commodities stated therein. 7. The provisions of the said section (section 30C) is a special provision in the matter of a reasonable belief with regard to the smuggling activity of the commodities stated therein. The provision when perused contains a procedure which appears to be self-contained in regard thereto based on the reasonable belief that the vehicle is used for smuggling goods stated therein. 8. Although normally there is a provision for release of goods and vehicle has to be found in section 29A, the question would depend on the factual matrix involved in a particular occasion. Relevant provisions pointed out by the learned Government Pleader not only from the said special provision of section 30C but also from other relevant provisions of the Act and Rules would show that the exercise of jurisdiction of release of the goods and vehicle would be governed by the facts involved. Reading the contents of the notice, in the matter of exercise of extraordinary powers, in my judgment the power of release need not be exercised as is seen from the contents of the notice referred to above. Further provisions of the said section would show that there is a power of confiscation also. These powers have to be considered as special provisions when the nature of smuggling floats on the surface of the record. For the above reasons petition stands dismissed at the state of admission. It is necessary to record that the learned Government Pleader has placed a copy of the order in O.P. No. 14323 of 1995 wherein this Court has granted release subject to certain conditions. In my judgment the facts which are revealed from the contents of the notice make out a difference. This especially when in the order placed for my consideration facts are not available and even otherwise facts would govern the ultimate exercise of extraordinary powers in every case. Ordered accordingly. Petition dismissed.