M/S. Sri Chowdeswari Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court directed the 1st respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Sales Tax), to consider the petitioner's application dated October 19, 2019, for the release of the seized goods. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within one week from the date of the order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The Court did not make any specific findings on the legality of the seizure itself, as the petition was disposed of based on the pending application for release and the potential damage to the goods. The issue of whether the seizure was arbitrary or violative of Article 19(1)(g) was not explicitly decided.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of goods, including Jute Twine, G.N. Cake, Fertilizers, and Cattle Feed, by the 1st respondent (Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes). The seizure occurred at the petitioner's Agricultural Market Committee (A.M.C.) Godowns at Piler, despite the goods being accounted for in the petitioner's books and covered by purchase invoices. The petitioner argued that the goods were perishable or had expiry dates and were seized without proper verification. The petitioner had submitted an application on October 19, 2019, requesting the release of the goods, which was received by the 1st respondent on October 26, 2019, and was pending consideration. The petitioner expressed concern that the goods would be damaged if no orders were passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in seizing the petitioner's goods, which were accounted for and covered by purchase invoices, without proper verification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was arbitrary and a misuse of official power, violating their fundamental right to carry on business. They argued that the goods were properly accounted for and supported by purchase bills, and the seizure was conducted without due verification. The petitioner also highlighted that the seized goods were perishable or had expiry dates, and their continued detention would lead to damage. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the 1st respondent regarding the merits of the seizure or the petitioner's application for release.