Page 36 - GSTL_13th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 2

J44 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
logs’ tariff rate @ 5% in VAT regime and the same chapter heading has been con-
tinued in the GST regime. Logically it is not understandable how the tariff head-
ing/chapter heading would be changed in the GST regime when there is no
change in uses of ‘wood logs’. The view that no change should take place is legal-
ly supported by two advance rulings; the said rulings confirmed the Heading as
4401 with GST rate @ 5% for the clearances of wood logs to paper industries. It is
only the Board’s Circular dated 31-12-2018 that classifies the wood logs for pulp-
ing under Chapter Heading of 4403 and makes it chargeable to GST Tariff rate @
18%. The effect of the Board’s Circular dated 31-12-2018 should be prospective as
clarification issued for higher rate for wood logs creates tax liability for the trad-
ers as well as for the paper industries. GST Council is requested to clarify that the
applicability of Board’s Circular should be prospective considering the fact that
there are legal restriction on admissibility of Input Tax Credit of the differential
amount of GST @ 13%. Alternatively, the traders/taxpayers should not be con-
sidered as “tax defaulter” for the purpose of payment of differential amount of
GST and no interest should be charged from the period 1st July, 2017 till the date
of issue of clarification, i.e., 31-12-2018.
_______

[Continued from page J35]

Conclusion
In view of the reasons set out in the judgment of Badku Joti Savant’s case
(AIR 196 SC 746) the Customs officer or a Central Excise officer is not a police
officer within the meaning of Section 25 of Evidence Act and therefore the con-
fessions made during enquiry are not covered by Section 25 of Indian Evidence
Act. Similarly as per the judgment of Constitutional Bench in Ramesh Chandra
Mehta v. State of West Bengal - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) the statements, recorded
under Section 171A of Sea Customs Act, under Section 108 of Indian Customs
Act, 1962 and Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 are admissible as evidence
and not hit by the bar provided by Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. It is sur-
prising that in Badku Joti Sawant’s case the Apex Court gave a broad meaning to
construe the term police officer within meaning of Section 25 of Indian Evidence
Act, but stopped short of including Central Excise officers and Customs officers
within that broad meaning simply because they don’t file police report or inves-
tigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The officers
under indirect tax laws have all the attributes of a police officer and are capable
of resorting to all methods which a police officer is capable of doing. Normally
they record statements under threat and coercion. Let us hope that the Apex
Court may revisit the finding given in Badku Joti Savant case and may hold that
the officers under indirect tax laws are also police officers within the meaning of
Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and also that, the moment the person is sum-
moned for questioning he will be deemed to be accused for the purpose of at-
tracting bar under testimonial compulsion under Section 20(3) of the Constitu-
tion.
_______

GST LAW TIMES  13th August 2020  36