Mohin Khan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court held that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Judge did not commit any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the petitioner's application for the release of the truck on supurdnama. The reasoning was based on the fact that proceedings had already been initiated by the GST Department under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, which deal with detention, seizure, release, and confiscation of goods and conveyances. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Union of India Vs. G.M. Kokil and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao, emphasizing the overriding effect of non-obstante clauses, to support the principle that the GST Act's provisions would prevail when proceedings under it are initiated. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and General Insurance Council regarding seized vehicles, the Court found that the lower courts acted within their powers by rejecting the supurdnama application due to the ongoing GST proceedings. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned GST authorities for the release of the vehicle as per the GST Act provisions.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohin Khan, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, which upheld the Judicial Magistrate First Class's rejection of his application for the release of a truck (registration No. OD-02-AY-8394) on supurdnama. The Magistrate's rejection was based on a letter from the Assistant Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax (GST), alleging tax evasion of Rs. 72 lacs concerning the illegal transport of Gold Steef Cigarettes and initiation of proceedings by the GST Department. The petitioner argued that the vehicle had been idle for nine months, would decay, and sought its release on supurdnama with any required conditions. The High Court directed the GST authorities to appear and provide instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application for the release of the truck on supurdnama, considering the GST Department had initiated proceedings. Petitioner's argument: The vehicle had been idle for approximately nine months, leading to its decay and potential unusability. Releasing it on supurdnama, with any stipulated conditions, would serve the interest of justice and prevent further deterioration. The petitioner offered to comply with any conditions imposed until the finalization of criminal or other departmental proceedings. Respondent's (State's) argument: Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act govern the detention, seizure, release, and confiscation of goods and conveyances in transit. The presence of a non-obstante clause in Section 70 of the GST Act (though not directly quoted in the argument section, it's implied by the reliance on Sections 129 and 130) suggests that the GST Act's provisions would override other considerations, including the Magistrate's jurisdiction for supurdnama release when GST proceedings are underway. The learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge correctly held that they lacked jurisdiction to entertain the supurdnama application due to the ongoing GST proceedings.