Yugalrajsinh Mahendrasinh Rajput vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that while the proceedings initiated under the show cause notice need to proceed further to a logical conclusion with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, there was no useful purpose served by keeping the bio-diesel under seized condition as samples had already been drawn and tested. Therefore, the Court directed that the show cause notice proceedings should continue. However, the seized quantity of bio-diesel was ordered to be released. The petitioner was permitted to repatriate the bio-diesel back to the original manufacturer, Yamuna Bio Energy Private Limited, as per their contract. The petitioner was also directed to submit a statement of accounts to the respondent no.2 regarding the repatriation and to furnish security commensurate with the quantity of the bio-diesel to the respondent no.2. The Court found that the petition could be disposed of on similar lines as the cited Special Civil Application No.5189 of 2019.

Facts

The petitioner, Yugalrajsinh Mahendrasinh Rajput, engaged in trading bio-diesel, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 03.01.2019 and a seizure order dated 17.10.2018, both issued by the Collector, Bhavanagar (respondent no.2). The petitioner's firm is registered under GST. The seizure involved 9404.44 liters of bio-diesel worth Rs. 6,30,097.48, based on alleged breaches of the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000. The petitioner provided documentation to support legitimate business operations. The respondent initially demanded a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,30,097.48 for release of goods, which the petitioner could not furnish due to financial difficulties. The show cause notice proposed confiscation of the seized goods under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 03.01.2019 issued by the Collector, Bhavanagar, and the seizure order dated 17.10.2018 are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside, considering the applicability of the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobiles) Order, 2000 to the petitioner's business of trading bio-diesel. Petitioner's contention: The Order 2000 is not applicable as bio-diesel is neither petroleum nor a petroleum product, thus no offence was committed. The petitioner relied on a previous decision of the High Court in Special Civil Application No.5189 of 2019 and other cognate matters. Revenue's contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that if the petition is disposed of as per the order passed in Special Civil Application No.5189 of 2019, the ends of justice would be met. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's primary contention regarding jurisdiction.