The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside a Ramanathapuram Judicial Magistrate’s order that had refused to release seized shark fins to Vijay Anand, proprietor of VAF Trading Company, and directed that the goods be returned subject to strict conditions.
The bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar, while allowing Criminal Revision Case No. 952 of 2024, observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any material to show that the petitioner attempted to commit offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended in 2022. The court also noted that the case involved a dispute over the authenticity of GST invoices linked to the seized goods.
On May 9, 2023, Forest Range Police, acting on a tip-off, intercepted Vijay Anand and a co-accused, Shahul Hameed, near Ramanathapuram Railway Station while they were allegedly loading 18 gunny bags containing prohibited shark fins into a vehicle. The seizure included 210 kg of Greater Hammerhead fins, 50 kg of Smooth Hammerhead fins, and 145 kg of Glaucosteus spp fins.
Anand sought the return of the seized goods by producing GST invoices and an affidavit from a purchaser, Ghori Mohammed, claiming that the transactions were legitimate and GST had been duly paid. These records, he argued, were reflected in both his GSTIN portal and that of the purchaser.
However, the GST department initially cast doubt on this claim. In a February 26, 2025 letter, the Superintendent of Central GST & Central Excise, Ramnad Range, reported that the purported buyer denied receiving the goods and that the registered premises of Anand’s company were found closed during inspection.
In a turn of events, a subsequent verification on April 1, 2025 revealed that the invoices were indeed recorded in the March 2024 GSTR-1 return of VAF Trading Company and also reflected in the GSTR-2A of the purchaser. This undermined the prosecution’s stand that the invoices were fabricated.
DNA analysis by the Advanced Institute of Wildlife Conservation, Vandalur, showed that one species (Pigeye Shark) was not under any schedule of the Act, while the other two (Scalloped Hammerhead and Sharpnose Guitarfish) fell under Schedule IV — restricting only export/import without prior permission, not domestic possession or trade.
The High Court stressed that there was no evidence the goods were meant for export, pointing out that the seizure occurred at a railway station without any link to a foreign shipment. It found that the Magistrate had failed to appreciate both the scientific report and the verified GST records before rejecting Anand’s request.
The court ordered the release of the goods upon execution of a Rs. 2 lakh bond with two sureties. Undertaking not to export Schedule IV species without prior permission. Agreement to deposit the value of the goods if required later.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijay Anand versus State
Case No.: Crl.R.C.(MD)No.952 of 2024
Date: 04/08/2925
Counsel For Petitioner: K.Althaf Sheriff
Counsel For Respondent: M.Aasha
Read More: Non-Payment Of Advocate’s Fee By Income Tax Dept. | Calcutta HC Dismisses Delayed Dept. Appeal
