Pulidindi Harish vs. The State Of Telangana
Facts
The petitioner, Pulidindi Harish, owner of a Tata Intra mini van (Reg.No.AP-39-UY-8379), filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam Division (2nd Respondent). The petitioner's vehicle was seized on September 26, 2025, under COR No. 84 of 2025 for allegedly transporting jaggery. The petitioner claims to have transported the goods with a proper tax invoice and GST e-way bill and denies transporting illicit liquor or alum. Despite expressing readiness to furnish third-party surety for the vehicle's release, the 2nd Respondent allegedly insisted on a court order. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the release of the vehicle.
Held
The Court held that at the present stage, any orders passed would be premature. This was because the petitioner had to respond to the show-cause notice dated October 24, 2025, which was issued under Section 13 of the Telangana State Prohibition Act, 1995, and Section 46 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The Court reasoned that the petitioner needed to avail the statutory remedy by responding to the notice before approaching the Court for further relief. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to furnish a reply to the show-cause notice and seek appropriate remedies available under the law. The Court did not decide on the legality of the seizure or the confiscation proceedings themselves.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the 2nd Respondent in not issuing orders for the release of the seized vehicle, despite the petitioner's readiness to furnish third-party surety, is illegal and arbitrary, turning on the provisions of the Telangana State Prohibition Act, 1995 and the Telangana Excise Act, 1968? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 2nd Respondent's refusal to release the vehicle, even with the offer of third-party surety, was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also claimed not to have received any notice regarding the seizure or potential confiscation. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise submitted that a show-cause notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle on October 24, 2025, under Section 13 of the Telangana State Prohibition Act, 1995, and Section 46 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, asking why the vehicle should not be confiscated. The petitioner's counsel was furnished with a copy of this notice.
Sections Cited
Section 13, Section 46
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3255 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Juri iction) TUE AY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 32557 0F 2025 Between: Pulidindi Harish, S/o.Kasi Viswanadham, Aged 32 years, Occ.Owner of Seized Vehicle(P^hysicallyttandicapped), Ryo.F.ruo.a-ZO, putigurthi viri peta, Madupalli, East Godavari District, Andhra pradesh-53322g. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Tte State Of Telangala, Represented by its principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Deputy_Commissioner Of Proh. AND Excise, , Khammam Division, Khammam District.
The station House officer, Aswaraopeta proh. And Eicise station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to IsSUE order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of 2nd Respondent in not issuing orders directing the 3rd Respondent for Release of Vehicle i.e., Tata lntra mini Van bearing Reg.No.Ap- 39-uY-8
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.