The challenge in the present writ petition is against the validity of Section 30E of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the “KGST Act”. On a consideration of the averments in the writ petition as also the submissions of the learned senior counsel Sri.K.B.Mohamed Kutty, I note that by a judgment dated 28.11.2014 in W.P.(C).No.30117/2010, I had rejected a challenge against the validity of Section 49 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the “KVAT Act”, by holding that the provisions of the said Section cannot be struck down as unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Section 30E of the KGST Act were introduced in the said enactment pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Syed Sirajudeen v. Intelligence Officer - [(2003) 129 STC 151], wherein this Court struck down the provisions of Section 30C of the KGST Act on finding that the provision, which enabled the authorities to confiscate vehicles that were involved in smuggling of goods, did W.P.(C).No.28777/2004 2 not actually define the word “smuggling”. It was held that the provisions of the Act governing confiscation of the vehicles and goods involved in smuggling were vague and therefore unconstitutional to that extent. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the State Legislature introduced Section 30E to the KGST Act which provided for confiscation of vehicles that were involved in smuggling of goods. The defects pointed out by this Court in respect of Section 30C of the KGST Act were remedied by the Legislature while enacting Section 30E of the said enactment. The provisions of Section 49 of the KVAT Act are more or less identical to that of Section 30E of the erstwhile KGST Act. I am of the view therefore, that the judgment rendered in W.P.(C).No.30117/2010 upholding the validity of Section 49 of the KVAT Act, would hold good to repel a challenge against the validity of Section 30E of the KGST Act in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition in its challenge against the validity against Section 30E of the KGST fails and is accordingly dismissed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that, against Ext.P8 order passed against the petitioner, there are remedies available to be pursued, under the KGST Act.
W.P.(C).No.28777/2004 3 Taking note of the submission, I make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing his statutory remedies under the KGST Act against Ext.P8 order imposing penalty on the petitioner.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp