J. Ramesh vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court directed Respondent No. 5 to release the seized stocks, as recorded in the mediator's report dated July 1, 2017, to the petitioner. This release was conditional upon the petitioner executing a personal bond for Rs. 3,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of Respondent No. 5. Additionally, the petitioner was required to file an affidavit before the authorities, affirming his commitment to return the said stocks to the depot from which they were purchased. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with these directions, noting no order as to costs. The primary finding was that the seizure, while perhaps based on a misunderstanding, could be resolved through a conditional release and an undertaking from the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, holding an A-4 license for a liquor shop which expired on June 30, 2017, had surplus stock remaining on that date. A new licensee obtained a license for the same premises from July 1, 2017. The petitioner intended to return the surplus stock to the A.P.S.B.C.L. Depot but was unable to do so on July 1, 2017, due to the commencement of GST and vehicle unavailability. On the same day, Respondent No. 5 inspected the premises and seized the entire stock, believing the petitioner was operating beyond his license period. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure as illegal and arbitrary, seeking the release of the seized stock.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of stock by Respondent No. 5 on July 1, 2017, was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's intention to return the surplus stock to the depot and the commencement of GST regulations. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure was wrongful as the stock was surplus from his expired license period and he intended to return it. He was prepared to execute a bank guarantee and return the stock to the depot. The commencement of GST on July 1, 2017, had created logistical challenges, preventing him from returning the stock immediately. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state authorities. The seizure was based on the impression that the petitioner was conducting business after his license expiry.