Md. Omar Mohd. Laskar vs. The State Of Assam And 6 Ors

Held

The Court held that the police authorities of Assam could not continue with the detention and seizure of trucks containing areca nuts solely on the plea of GST violation without invoking and following the procedure prescribed under Section 67 of the AGST Act. If the police believed there was fraud or forgery simpliciter, which are offenses under the IPC, they should proceed strictly following the CrPC. The Court also clarified that any seizure under Section 102(1) of the CrPC must be followed by a report to the Magistrate as per Section 102(3) of the CrPC. Considering the bio-security risks and potential violations of the Customs Act, the Court directed that the detained goods be retained by the police for seven days, during which the GST authorities, police, and Customs authorities must decide how to proceed. If no decision is taken within seven days, the detention and seizure would be declared illegal. Any proceedings initiated must strictly adhere to the respective laws (GST Acts, CrPC/IPC, or Customs Act). The judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified accordingly.

Facts

On August 21, 2019, police officials detained 25 trucks carrying areca nuts from Cachar district due to suspected lack of proper documentation. Subsequently, one more truck was detained. Investigations revealed that some consignor firms were fictitious, and there were allegations of record manipulation and document forgery. An ejahar was lodged on September 3, 2019, alleging discrepancies in truck owners' details and, crucially, that documents pertaining to Goods and Services Tax (GST) payment were not in order, suggesting GST evasion. The petitioner contended that the search and seizure by police officials were illegal and without jurisdiction, as only a proper officer under Section 67 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (AGST Act) could initiate such actions. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) also indicated that the betel nuts might have been smuggled from Myanmar, violating the Customs Act and posing bio-security risks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the search and seizure of trucks carrying areca nuts by police officials of Jalukbari Police Station, based on suspicion of GST evasion and document forgery, were legal and within their jurisdiction, particularly in light of Section 67 of the AGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the police lacked the authority to conduct search and seizure for alleged GST evasion. They contended that under Section 67 of the AGST Act, only a proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, could initiate such actions based on specific reasons to believe tax evasion or excess input tax credit claims. Therefore, the police action was an aberration of established legal procedure. Revenue/State's argument: The police authorities, in their affidavit, referred to a letter from the DRI indicating potential smuggling of betel nuts from Myanmar, violating the Customs Act and posing bio-security risks. They also asserted the power to seize property under Section 102 of the CrPC. The judgment also notes the DRI's view that the goods were liable for seizure under the Customs Act.