2002 (4) TMI 922 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Procedure followed during search and seizure of gold and silver articles.
2. Validity of confiscation order passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner.
3. Legality of a corrigendum issued to modify the confiscation order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a merchant in gold and silver ornaments, challenged the procedure followed by the respondents during the search and seizure of his business premises. The petitioner argued that while the respondents were entitled to search and seize the articles, the confiscation order passed without giving him an opportunity to state his case was in violation of section 28(6) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The respondents contended that the confiscation order was justified based on a statement from the petitioner indicating no objection to confiscation. However, the Court found that the statement might have been made under duress, and the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present his case rendered the confiscation order unsustainable.

2. The Court examined the legality of a corrigendum issued by the respondents to modify the confiscation order. The Special Government Pleader argued that the corrigendum, issued to provide the petitioner with time to submit an explanation, rendered the confiscation order non-existent. However, the Court held that the Act did not empower the authority to revise or modify a confiscation order once passed. Therefore, the corrigendum issued on March 9, 2002, was deemed unauthorized and unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the respondents must consider any objections filed by the petitioner before deciding on the confiscation of the seized articles.

3. Consequently, the Court set aside the confiscation order dated March 8, 2002, and granted the petitioner two weeks to submit objections for the appropriate authority to review. The Court directed the authority to conduct an inquiry into the matter and make a decision on the confiscation of the seized articles in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present his case and challenge the confiscation proceedings.