Page 195 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] J.K. TRADERS v. UNION OF INDIA 241

14. The consignor-petitioner No. 1, M/s. J.K. Traders, Doturi, Kawa-
tika, Bijni, Chirang, Assam is registered dealer under the provisions of GST Act
and petitioner No. 2 M/s. Ganga Sagar Transport, Dhupgru, Bhag Jatin Colony,
Ward No. 5, Dist: Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, is transporter of goods and the con-
signee M/s. Raghvendra Swami Traders, TSS Road No. 01, Market Yard, Sirsi,
Karnataka-581402 is also a registered dealer under GST Act.
15. With these undisputed facts, before us, Learned Additional Solicitor
General of the India, Shri S. D. Sanjay invites our attention to the general practice
of trade of illegal transportation of such goods from Nepal into India. For entry
of such goods imported from anywhere other than India, is prohibited in law.
But is it really so? in the instant case. Well except for bald assertion, there is noth-
ing to support such a statement.
16. It is seen that the Learned Single Judge by distinguishing its earlier
decision rendered in M/s. Ayesha Exports v. The Union of India (CWJC No. 7589 of
2018) [2020 (371) E.L.T. 353 (Pat.)] dealing with the very same issue directing re-
lease of the goods on the very same set of facts, dismissed the writ petition hold-
ing that there was a report of the laboratory indicating the goods to be not fit for
human consumption; that investigation would reveal as to whether the goods
were liable for confiscation or not and that there are Circulars and Memorandum
issued by the Government.
17. At this stage, we may point out that the endeavour of the Learned
Single Judge in distinguishing the judgment in M/s. Ayesha Exports (supra), in
relation to which SLP also stood dismissed, was adventurous, not maintaining
comity of judicial consistency. (See : Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The
Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others, AIR 1990 SC 261). We find the Learned
Single Judge to have misconstrued and not fully appreciated the material on rec-
ord. In fact, one of the Experts opined the product to be unfit on the basis of sus-
picion. We may notice that the goods were seized in February, 2019 and despite
passage of 10 months, the investigation has not revealed the reasons of detention
to be fortified in any manner. It is in this backdrop, holding the Learned Single
Judge to have committed a grave error, we proceed to hear the appeals on merits.
18. The consignor and the consignee are recorded and are identified.
The goods are not seized at any notified customs zone or area. Save and except
for what is recorded in the seizure memo, there is no other material available on
record. The Learned Additional Solicitor General has tried to supplement the
reasons for formation of ‘reason to believe’, which also are on mere suspicion,
through the affidavit of the authority. In the light of what is laid down by the
Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851, it would be impermissible for the authori-
ty to do so. When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise, for a
bad order, with the passage of time, and supplementing the reasons would be-
come good, which is not how the authorities are required to function, more so, in
a case of confiscatory legislation. But assuming hypothetically, accepting the rea-
sons furnished by the officer, even then it is nothing more than a mere suspicion.
A general practice in trade cannot be, ipso facto, applied and adopted to the in-
stant case, for unless it is shown that the act and the conduct of the petitioner
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  211