Bhuvanam Lakshmi Suguna vs. The State Of Andhra Pradhesh

Held

The Court, considering the facts and the subsequent registration of a crime (Crime No. 134 of 2019) under Sections 378 and 420 of IPC and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, found it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to make an application before the Trial Court for the release of the vehicle. The Court held that the Trial Court shall deal with such an application on the same day and pass appropriate orders for the release of the vehicle on such terms and conditions as it deems fit. The Court did not delve into the merits of the seizure or the genuineness of the documents but provided a procedural direction for seeking release of the vehicle. The issue of whether the seizure was illegal or justified was implicitly deferred to the Trial Court's consideration during the release proceedings.

Facts

The Petitioner, owner of lorry bearing registration no. AP 07 TF 9689, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of his vehicle by the 2nd Respondent (Revenue authorities). The vehicle was hired by M/s. Veeranjaneya Traders to transport granite slabs to Maharashtra. Upon interception, the driver produced e-way bills and tax invoices provided by the hiring dealer. However, the authorities found the documents to be not genuine or satisfactory, leading to the seizure of the vehicle and issuance of proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner contended he was merely the vehicle owner and had no involvement with the goods, fearing damage to the vehicle if kept idle. The Revenue argued the goods were transported without proper documents and the provided documents were fake. Subsequently, a crime was registered against the driver for offences under IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act, and the vehicle was at the police station.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the Petitioner's vehicle, being a hired vehicle, without proper due process, is illegal and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the Petitioner? 2. Whether the Revenue's action of seizing the vehicle is justified given the alleged fake or unsatisfactory documents, as contended by the Revenue? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that he is solely the owner of the vehicle and has no connection with the goods being transported. He emphasized that the vehicle was hired by a granite dealer and he is concerned about the potential damage to his vehicle if it remains seized for an extended period. He also stated that he produced the documents given to him by the owner of the goods and was unaware of their genuineness. Revenue's Contention: The learned Government Pleader for the Revenue argued that the goods transported were without proper tax invoice and e-way bill, and the documents produced by the driver were fake. Therefore, the Revenue contended that there was no justification for the release of the vehicle.