Sri Bipul Kumar Dhar 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 the trucks on the plea of GST evasion without invoking and following the procedure prescribed under Section 67 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. If the police believed there was fraud or forgery related to GST documents, they should proceed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) by following the required procedures. Regarding the police's reliance on Section 102 of the CrPC for seizure, the Court stated that any such seizure must be followed by a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, as mandated by Section 102(3) CrPC. The Court also noted the DRI's report indicating potential smuggling from Myanmar and bio-security risks, suggesting that if the Customs authorities had reason to believe violations of the Customs Act occurred, they should initiate proceedings under Sections 100/101 of the Customs Act. The Court directed that the detained 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 within seven days, the detention and seizure would be declared illegal. Any proceedings initiated must strictly follow the respective laws (GST Acts, CrPC/IPC, or Customs Act).

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Bipul Kumar Dhar, and others are appealing a High Court judgment concerning the detention and seizure of 26 trucks carrying areca nuts. On August 21, 2019, police detained the trucks based on information that they were moving without proper documents. Subsequent investigation revealed potential manipulation of records, forgery of documents, and discrepancies in GST payment documents, leading to the lodging of an ejahar (complaint) on September 3, 2019. The petitioner argued that the search and seizure by police were illegal and without jurisdiction, as only designated GST officers could initiate such actions under Section 67 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) also indicated that the areca nuts might have been smuggled from Myanmar, violating the Customs Act and posing a bio-security risk.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention and seizure of trucks carrying areca nuts by police officials of Jalukbari Police Station, based on allegations of GST evasion and forged documents, were illegal and without jurisdiction, given the exclusive powers vested in GST authorities under Section 67 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the police authorities of Assam had the power to seize the trucks and areca nuts under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and if so, whether the prescribed procedure under Section 102(3) CrPC was followed? 3. Whether the investigation and detention should be transferred to the Customs Department, considering the DRI's report suggesting smuggling from Myanmar and potential violations of the Customs Act, 1962, and bio-security concerns? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the police lacked the authority to search, seize, or investigate matters pertaining to GST evasion, as these powers are exclusively vested in the proper officers under Section 67 of the AGST Act, 2017. They argued that the police action was an aberration of established legal procedure. Revenue/State's Arguments: The police authorities asserted their power to seize property under Section 102 of the CrPC. The DRI's report highlighted potential smuggling and bio-security risks, suggesting the involvement of Customs authorities.