Jagadish Prasad Sah vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

During a Naka checking on August 1, 2022, police seized a TATA 1109 vehicle containing 48 drums of suspected crude oil. The vehicle, coming from Sivasagar towards Jorhat, did not stop when signaled. The driver and handyman were taken into custody. An FIR was lodged at Gaurisagar Police Station (Case No. 90/2022) under Sections 120(B)/379/411/353 IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The FSL report confirmed the seized oil was fuel oil. The petitioner, Jagadish Prasad Sah, filed a petition for zimma (custody) of the seized oil. The JMFC, Sivasagar, sought reports on ownership and necessity for further investigation. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax reported that the petitioner's GSTIN was cancelled since 2021 and that tax invoices were issued against this cancelled GSTIN, indicating tax evasion.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish ownership of the 48 drums of fuel oil seized by the police. The Court noted that the petitioner's GSTIN (18BZPS3700E1ZE) had been cancelled since 2021, rendering the tax invoices presented as invalid. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax's report confirmed that these invoices were issued against a cancelled GSTIN, indicating tax evasion. The Court also considered the FSL report which identified the seized substance as fuel oil and the police's report stating that the ownership of the drums could not be ascertained due to the invalid GST receipts. Consequently, the learned JMFC, Sivasagar, was correct in rejecting the petitioner's zimma petition. The Court found no illegality in the order dated July 13, 2023, passed by the JMFC, Sivasagar, rejecting the zimma petition. The criminal revision petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Jagadish Prasad Sah, has established ownership of the 48 drums of fuel oil seized in connection with Gaurisagar P.S. Case No. 90/2022, thereby entitling him to zimma of the seized goods, under the relevant provisions of criminal procedure concerning the release of seized property? The petitioner argued that he had filed a petition for zimma of the seized oil and that the seized oil was not required for further investigation. He contended that the tax invoices provided by the accused party should be considered valid. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, argued that the petitioner's GSTIN had been cancelled since 2021, and the tax invoices presented were invalid, indicating tax evasion. The State also relied on the FSL report confirming the seized substance as fuel oil and the police's inability to ascertain ownership due to invalid GST receipts.