M/S. Karunamaya Cigarette And Tobacco Products vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court recorded the submissions of both parties. The petitioner had previously obtained an interim order in an earlier writ petition, where the Court had noted that the 4th respondent appeared to have exceeded his brief by attempting to invoke Food Safety Regulations, for which he was not the competent authority, and that it was a case of abuse of power. The revenue contended that the 4th respondent acted as per Government Order and no further action was taken. Recording these submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent not to take any further action exceeding his jurisdiction pursuant to the impugned notice. The Court did not expressly decide on the validity of the Government Order or the extent of the 4th respondent's powers beyond the specific notice.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Sales Tax Authority (4th respondent) in attempting to take samples of tobacco products from their shop and threatening coercive action under the Food Safety Standard Act. The petitioner alleged harassment and violation of their rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. This action was based on a notice dated 27.11.2018. The petitioner had previously filed a similar writ petition (W.P.No.41702 of 2018) challenging the same notice, wherein the Court had granted an interim order, observing that the 4th respondent had exceeded his jurisdiction by invoking Food Safety Regulations. That earlier petition was disposed of. The present petition was filed due to alleged further harassment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Sales Tax Authority (4th respondent) acted within his jurisdiction by attempting to take samples of tobacco products and threatening action under the Food Safety Standard Act, thereby exceeding his powers under the GST regime and violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the 4th respondent, a Sales Tax Authority, was not competent to invoke the Food Safety Standard Act and that his actions constituted harassment and an abuse of power, exceeding his jurisdiction. They relied on previous rulings of the Apex Court and other High Courts. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes argued that the 4th respondent acted in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 09.01.2013, which entitled him to check for banned items and inform Food Safety enforcement authorities. They submitted that no further action was taken or contemplated, and the allegations of harassment were false. They also pointed to the disposal of the earlier writ petition.