THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. KISHAN MANJIBHAI GADHESARIYA

TAXAP/254/2021HC GujaratGJHC24006333202114 February 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE115 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received information about a bogus firm, M/s. Perfect Chemicals, Aurangabad, consigning a psychotropic substance, likely Alprazolam, to M/s. Bhatia Chemicals, Vapi. The parcel, under Lorry Receipt No. 22987 dated 03.03.2009, was to be delivered at M/s. Choudhary Roadways, Vapi. Surveillance revealed the parcel was stored in the godown. No one claimed it, so DRI officials entered and drew samples. Later, Jayeshbhai Chunibhai Vadaliya came to claim the parcel, identifying himself as Anuj Shah as instructed. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, implicated Kishan Manjibhai Gadhesariya, his employer, and his brother Sanjaybhai Manjibhai Gadhesariya, who allegedly orchestrated the transaction using bogus documents.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are substantive evidence and can be used to connect an individual with the contravention of the Act. The Tribunal, as the fact-finding authority, had failed to properly examine the Order in Original and the cogent evidence on record. The Court found that the Tribunal's findings were in complete disregard of the evidence, making them perverse. Therefore, the High Court did not consider itself bound by the Tribunal's findings. The Court concluded that the Tribunal committed an error in disturbing the order of the adjudicating Commissioner. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CESTAT erred in interpreting and applying Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the case of the respondent? The Revenue contended that statements recorded under Section 108 are substantive evidence and can be relied upon to connect the respondent with the contravention of the Customs Act. The respondent's side argued that such statements are not substantive evidence and require corroboration. 2. Whether the CESTAT erred in interpreting and applying Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, to the case of the respondent? The Revenue argued that the confiscation and penalty under Section 114(i) were justified based on the evidence. The respondent's side likely argued against the applicability of this section or the sufficiency of evidence for its invocation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 108,Section 114(i),Section 130

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/254/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 254 of 2021 With In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 254 of 2021 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 255 of 2021 With In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 255 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO ================================================================ THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus KISHAN MANJIBHAI GADHESARIYA ================================================================ Appearance: MR DHAVAL D VYAS, STANDING COUNSEL for the Appel

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 108

All 37 judgments and leading authorities on Section 108 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →