Vasamsetty Bhima Shankara Rao Atbhima Sankaram vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned authorities within two weeks of receiving the order. The concerned authorities were then directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation on its own merits and in accordance with law within two weeks of receiving it. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the legality of the seizure or the classification of jaggery as an agricultural produce in this order, deferring the decision to the administrative process initiated by the representation. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities should consider representations regarding seized goods promptly and in accordance with law, especially when the legality of the seizure is contested on grounds of the nature of the goods.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in the business of jaggery and other kirana items with a valid GST license, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of 3294 kgs of jaggery. The seizure occurred on 22.06.2022 by the 3rd respondent in connection with Crime No.220 of 2022. The case was registered against the petitioner for offences under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, based on a confession statement linking the jaggery to the manufacturing of illicit liquor. The petitioner contended that jaggery is an agricultural produce with no legal prohibition on its sale, purchase, or transportation, citing a Government Memo dated 20.12.2010 that categorizes jaggery as agricultural produce and advises against restricting it. The petitioner argued that jaggery is not an excisable article under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, making the seizure illegal and entitling them to the release of the seized stock.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of 3294 kgs of jaggery by the 3rd respondent in connection with Crime No.220 of 2022, under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, is illegal and arbitrary, thereby entitling the petitioner to its release? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that jaggery is an agricultural produce, not subject to any prohibition on sale, purchase, or transportation. They relied on Government Memo No.47802/Ex.III/1/2006-13 dated 20.12.2010, which classifies jaggery as agricultural produce or its bio-products and prohibits restrictions on such items. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that jaggery is not an excisable article under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and related Government Orders, thus rendering the seizure illegal. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Government Pleader stated that if the petitioner submits a representation to the concerned authorities, they will consider and dispose of it.