US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
The Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (I&E), Ernakulam, State Goods And Services Tax Department – Appellant
Versus
Sasi Pathirakunnath – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner (appeals) under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax / State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (‘the CGST / SGST Act’ for short) and Rules made thereunder. The State Tax Officer, Squad No.1 SGST Department Ernakulam, while conducting vehicle checking on 07.09.2021, received intimation from the Railway Protection Force, Ernakulam regarding the transport of gold by Mr. Nikhil Suresh without any documents as required under the provisions of CGST / SGST Act. On inspection, the carrier failed to produce documents to prove the genuineness of the gold ornaments under the transportation.
2. The railway protection team handed over the gold ornaments to the State Tax Officer and issued a summons. The statement of the carrier was recorded. After knowing the detention of the gold ornaments and issuance of notices to the respondent, the respondent appeared before the adjudicating officer and filed objections. However, the respondent failed to produce any document
The appellate authority has the power to modify the fine imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 130(2) of the CGST / SGST Act.
The appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the CGST/SGST Act has the jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the adjudicating authority in imposing the fine in lieu of confis....
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
The disposal of seized property without notice and due process violates constitutional rights, rendering such actions illegal and unconstitutional.
Quasi-judicial proceedings require strict adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, which was violated in this case, rendering the confiscation order....
The judgment establishes the application of the strict liability principle under the Customs Act, emphasizing the absence of mens rea for contravention and the judicial exercise of discretion by the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article