P. Venugopal Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that prima facie, the seizure of the vehicle was illegal. It reasoned that jaggery is not a prohibited item, and the e-Way Bill Rules do not mandate a Way Bill for its transport. The suspicion that the goods were being transported for the manufacture of illicit liquor, without any further evidence of an offense committed at that stage, was insufficient to justify the seizure. The Court acknowledged that an inquiry was still required under the Excise Act. However, considering the petitioner's role as a common carrier and the prevailing COVID-19 situation, the Court directed the release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee/Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 1,50,000/- before the second respondent. The petitioner was also required to furnish an undertaking not to alienate or change the vehicle's physical features. The second respondent was directed to inform the RTA authority to prevent any transfer of the vehicle without clearance from the Excise Department. The release was made subject to the final orders of the authorities after the inquiry.

Facts

The petitioner, P. Venugopal Reddy, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his Ashok Leyland lorry (Reg. No. AP-02-TB-4911) seized by the respondent authorities. The seizure occurred on December 16, 2020, in FIR No. 104 of 2020. The petitioner contended that the jaggery being transported in his vehicle was not a prohibited item and that no Way Bill was required under GST Rules. The seizure was based on suspicion that the goods were intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor. The petitioner was ready to furnish third-party surety for the release of the vehicle, valued at approximately Rs. 5,00,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle carrying jaggery was illegal and arbitrary, considering jaggery is not a prohibited item and no Way Bill was required under GST Rules, thereby constituting an excise offense at the stage of transport? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal as jaggery is not a prohibited item, and there was no requirement for a Way Bill under GST Rules. The suspicion of illicit liquor manufacture was unfounded at the stage of transport, and thus, no excise offense was committed. The action of the respondent in not releasing the vehicle despite the petitioner's readiness to furnish surety was illegal and arbitrary. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their action of seizing the vehicle and their role in the proceedings suggest they believed there was a potential excise offense.