Nunna Srirama Murthy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that a release order had already been passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and the petitioner had paid the stipulated penalty and tax. The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, the police should not withhold the release of the seized gold and jewelry. The Court directed the respondent police to hand over the gold and jewelry to the petitioner. However, as a condition for release, the petitioner was directed to furnish an affidavit undertaking not to alter or alienate the gold and jewelry and to produce them as and when directed until the completion of the case. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Nunna Srirama Murthy, proprietor of M/s. Pavani Jewellers, filed a writ petition seeking the release of jewelry seized by the police. The jewelry was seized on February 1, 2024, pursuant to FIR No. 31 of 2024, under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 Cr.P.C., on the grounds of alleged transportation without valid documents. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Bhimavaram Circle, Eluru, passed an order of confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017, and levied a penalty and tax of Rs. 2,08,654/-, which was paid by the petitioner on February 8, 2024. A release order was issued by the GST authorities. However, the respondent police officials refused to release the jewelry, citing a letter from the Additional Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Visakhapatnam, dated February 2, 2024, directing them not to release the property until the investigation is complete.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent police are justified in refusing to release the seized gold and jewelry to the petitioner, despite the petitioner having paid the penalty and tax levied by the GST authorities and a release order being issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interplay between Cr.P.C., GST Act, and Income Tax investigation). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure and retention of the gold and jewelry are untenable. They argued that the business involves routine transportation of gold to Chennai for making jewelry, and they are regular Income Tax and GST assessees. Having paid the penalty and tax of Rs. 2,08,654/-, further retention of the property amounts to harassment. They relied on Section 112 Cr.P.C. as an enabling provision. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent police, in their counter-affidavit, stated that they were directed by the Additional Director, Income Tax (Investigation), not to release the seized property until the completion of their investigation.