Samsir Uddin And Anr 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 on the plea of GST evasion without invoking the provisions of Section 67 of the AGST Act and following the prescribed procedure. If the police believed there was fraud or forgery related to GST documents, they could proceed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) for such offenses, strictly following the procedure. Regarding the police's assertion of power under Section 102 of the CrPC, the Court stated that any seizure must be reported 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 suggested that if empowered officers had reasons to believe, proceedings should be initiated under Sections 100/101 of the Customs Act. The Court directed that the seized goods be retained by the police for seven days, during which the GST, police, and Customs authorities must decide how to proceed. If no decision is taken or proceedings initiated under the respective laws within seven days, the detention and seizure would be declared illegal. Any proceedings initiated must strictly adhere to the relevant provisions of the GST Acts, CrPC/IPC, or Customs Act.

Facts

The appellants, M/s Samsir Uddin and its proprietor Md. Samsir Uddin, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of 26 trucks carrying areca nuts by the Jalukbari Police Station on August 21, 2019. The police alleged that the trucks were moving without proper documents, and their investigation revealed manipulation of records, forgery of documents, and evasion of GST dues. The police lodged an ejahar on September 3, 2019, initiating proceedings under GST laws and the Indian Penal Code. The appellants contended that the search and seizure by police officials were illegal and without jurisdiction, as only proper officers under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (AGST Act) could undertake 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 a bio-security risk.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police authorities of Assam had the jurisdiction to detain and seize trucks carrying areca nuts and initiate proceedings based on alleged violations of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (AGST Act)? 2. Whether the detention and seizure of the trucks by the police, invoking Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure? 3. Whether the alleged violations, including potential smuggling under the Customs Act and bio-security risks, necessitate proceedings under the Customs Act or other relevant laws? Petitioner's arguments: The appellants argued that under Section 67 of the AGST Act, only designated GST officers, not the police, could conduct search and seizure for alleged GST evasion. They contended that the police action was an aberration of established legal procedure. They also argued that any seizure under Section 102 of the CrPC must be reported to the Magistrate as per Section 102(3) of the CrPC. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, including the State of Assam and the Customs Department, indicated that the areca nuts were likely smuggled from Myanmar, violating the Customs Act and posing bio-security risks. The DRI's communication suggested that the goods were liable for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The police asserted their power to seize property under Section 102 of the CrPC.