M/S. Sri Srinivasa Kiranam And Gen. Merchants, Nalgonda Dist. vs. Prl. Secy., Excise Dept. And 5 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Srinivasa Kiranam & General Merchants, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the actions of the respondents (Government of Telangana, Excise Department, Police Department) in harassing and interfering with their business of trading in Black Jaggery and Alum as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner alleged that their stock was seized despite possessing valid licenses, bills, and waybills. The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner failed to produce purchase bills and waybills for the transportation of Black Jaggery and Alum, raising suspicion that the goods were intended for illicit liquor production. They relied on a Full Bench decision in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagar.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's life, liberty, and lawful business, except in accordance with law or until such activity is prohibited by the State. The Court noted that carrying on business in Black Jaggery and Alum is neither prohibited nor can a trader be treated as dealing in contraband if they possess trade licenses, GST registration, and other required permissions. The Court referred to its previous orders in W.P. No. 31519 of 2016 and W.P. No. 1677 of 2016, which held that seizure of Black Jaggery consignments covered by waybills and purchase documents should not be effected. The Court also took note of a Circular dated 22.12.2001 and a Memo dated 20.12.2010, which clarified that Black Jaggery is an agricultural produce and dealing in it is not prohibited. The Court further referenced the GUR (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968, which empowers authorities to call for purchase invoices/bills, and adverse inference can only be drawn upon failure to produce them. The Court found the petitioner to be similarly situated as in the previously decided cases and thus entitled to similar relief.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the respondents in interfering with and seizing the petitioner's stock of Black Jaggery and Alum, despite the petitioner possessing valid licenses, bills, and waybills, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that their business in Black Jaggery and Alum is conducted under valid licenses and that they produced bills and waybills evidencing legitimate purchase and transportation. They contended that the respondents' interference and seizure were illegal and violated their fundamental right to carry on business. They relied on previous orders of the High Court in similar matters. Respondents' argument: The respondents argued that the petitioner did not produce the purchase bills and waybills for the Black Jaggery and Alum. They contended that this failure raised a 'reason to believe' that the goods were intended for making illicit liquor, and therefore, the ratio laid down in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagar, would apply.
Sections Cited
Article 19(1)(g), GUR (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR 3. . Whe n thc mater is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel lor the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.1677 of 2016, dated 26.O7 .2022. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute as to the ratio laid down therein. He u,ould, hou,ever, submit that in the facts of the present case, as the petilioner dici not produce the bills of his purchase and i ! I WRIT PETITION No.28178 of 2OL4 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed u,ith the following prayer: ".....to issue e wrLt, order or direction more panl{cularlg one iL the nature of WriL of motdatnus dectaing the actrotl of tlrc respondetTts tn harassing by interferirry with f/re busirress of the petitioter in black jaggerg and qLum under uelid ttcence and aLso se[zing tlw satd jaggery and alum, euert tlTouglt on production of btl|s and utag bills euidencing thct Lt Luas purchased under bitls and not aLl.owing tlLe petitioner to carry on buslness tn bLack jeggery atrd alunL, as ilLegal and arbitrary and without anA authoitlj of lau.) apaft rt'otrt uioLatiue of fundatnental tight guarant.eed under ArticLe 19(g) of the Constitution of IndtcL and consequentlA direct the respondents not to inlerfere in ang ma nner in lhe business of the petitioner
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibitior-r & Excise appearing for respondents, and pcrused the record.
). also the wa], biils under which the transporration of Black Jaggery and Alum has becn effected by the petitioner, there is 'reason to bclieve' that goods storcd by the pctitioner at its premises are intended for making l.D. liquor; and that the ratio laid down by a Futl bench ol this Court in Ganesh Traders v. District Collector, Karimnagarr rvould apply in all force to the case of the petitioner.
I have taken note of thc above submissions.
This Court, by order dt.I9.O4.O222 in W.p. No.3tS19 of 2016 and order dt.26.02.2022 in W.p. No.1677 of 2016, has already held that carrying on the business in Black Jaggery and Alum is neither prohibited nor the person trading in such goods can be treated as dealing in contraband, whereby the respondent authorities can interfere in the conduct of business undertaken by obtaining trade licence, VAT/GST registration and other required permissions.
This Court in the above said two decisions also took note of the Circular, dated 22.t2.2OO1, ancl Me mo, dated 20.12.2O1O, r.,r,hereunder the authorities, firstly, were directed 12002(1)ALD 210
3 'il not to effect scizure of consignments oI Black Jaggery, which are covered by wal,bills and purchasc documents indicating clearly the name and addrcss of the consignor and consignee etc; and secondly. as to the multiple uses of Black Jaggery and that Black Jaggery being considered as Agriculture produce and bio-produce of Jaggery industry and dealing in the same not being prohibited.
Irurther, this Court also took notc of the GUR (Regulation ,of use) Order, 1968, r.vhereunder the authorities are empowered to call upon the possessor of Black Jaggery to produce invoice/ bi11s of purchase of Black Jaggery and to verify the same and it is only on failure to produce, an adverse inference against the possessor can be drawn.
The petitioner in the prcsent case claims to be similarly situated as like thc petitioncrs in the above two Writ Petitions by carrying on business uncler valid licences and effecting purchase under valid documents and is thus entitled for similar relief as granted by this Court in the said Writ Petitions.
In view of the same, and for the reasons alike as were stated in the orders dated 19.04.2O22 in WP.No.31519 ol 2OL6 and dated 26.07.2022 in W.P. No.l677 of 2016, the present 1i I , I :
Writ Petirion is allos,cd: Writ 01 Mandan.ilrs is issuecl clircctiltg the rcspondenLs not to interlerc u-irh t1-rc liic and libern, of Lhc petitioner as u,e1l as lau.lul brrsincss being carrieci on bv the pelitioner excepl ir-r accordancc ,,vitl-r lau, or t.ill such a Lime the said activitv of sale is not othcrq,ise prohibitcd b-1, thc State. No costs. 1 1. Consequently, misccllaneous petitiorrs perrdir-rg, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the Ghief Justice UJJAL BHUYAN, on this Monday, the Twelfth Day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Two - - .N.RAJ GOPAL ASSTSTANT Rqglsrry\R //rRUE coPY/' .ecrio^r'6lncen To,
The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Assistant Excise Superintendent, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, I\Iiryalaguda, Nalgonda District
The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District.
The Circle lnspector of Police, Huzurnagar P.S., Nalgonda District
The Station House Officer, Neredcherla Police Station (Law & Orde| Nalgonda District.
One CC to SRI K. BUCHI BABU, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
Two CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT] 10.Two CD Copies. 1 1 . One Spare Copy h/lP PS
HIGH COURT DATED:1210912022 s .\!b {. ,:i.i' ORDER of 2O14 8 7 c 1 i" 8 I'J ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $^ 95& --"=-= ./,I /;:(t t\ z \te N"*
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.