M/S.Tamil Nadu Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of Food

Held

The Court held that the issue involved in the writ petition was covered by a previous order of the same Court in W.P.No.21 of 2017, dated June 9, 2017. Following this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned notification dated May 23, 2017. The reasoning was based on the applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act to tobacco products, which was addressed in the prior judgment. The Court explicitly stated that this order would not prevent the appropriate authority from taking action under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The ratio decidendi is that proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act are not maintainable against dealers of tobacco products if the matter is covered by the COTP Act, and such proceedings should be quashed based on prior judicial pronouncements.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Tamil Nadu Enterprises, a proprietorship firm dealing in tobacco products since 2001, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated May 23, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety. The petitioner possesses GST registration from both the Central and Tamil Nadu governments and has prior licenses for its operations. The notification initiated proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011. The petitioner contended that these provisions are inapplicable to their business of dealing in tobacco products.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, are applicable to the sale of "Chewing Tobacco" by the petitioner, a registered dealer of tobacco products. (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as a dealer of tobacco products, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and its associated regulations have no application to their business. They stated they have been dealing in tobacco products since 2001 with valid licenses and GST registration, without violating any laws. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, contended that the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Food Safety) had rightly passed the impugned order and that there was no illegality in the order.