Smt. M.Meera vs. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the seizure of the lorry was prima facie illegal. The Court observed that jaggery is not a prohibited item and its transportation from Giripuram to Mahabubabad District did not necessitate a Way Bill under the GST Rules. The mere suspicion that the goods were being transported for the manufacture of illicit liquor, without any concrete evidence of an offense committed at that stage, was not sufficient to justify the seizure. Therefore, the Court directed the release of the seized vehicle (AP-03X-3778) to the petitioner upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee/Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 50,000/- before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was also required to furnish an undertaking not to alienate or alter the vehicle's physical features. The 2nd respondent was directed to inform the RTA authority to prevent any transfer of the vehicle without clearance from the Excise Department. The release was granted considering the peculiar situation due to COVID-19 and was made subject to the final orders to be passed by the authorities pursuant to an inquiry under the Excise Act. The Court expressly left undecided the ultimate outcome of the inquiry under the Excise Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. M. Meera, filed a writ petition seeking the release of her lorry (Reg.No. AP-03-X-3778), which was seized by the Station House Officer, Maripeda Police Station, in Cr.No. 91/2020. The seizure was based on the suspicion that the goods (jaggery) being transported were intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor. The petitioner was ready to furnish third-party surety for the release of the vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, was the authority responsible for ordering the release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the lorry carrying jaggery, a non-prohibited item, was illegal and arbitrary, given that there was no requirement for a Way Bill under the GST Rules and the suspicion of illicit liquor manufacture did not constitute an excise offense at the stage of transportation? (Framed as a question of law and mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of relevant excise and GST provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary as jaggery is not a prohibited item, and no excise offense was committed at the stage of transportation. They argued that the suspicion alone was insufficient to justify the seizure. They were willing to furnish surety for the vehicle's release. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the GP for Prohibition and Excise, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but their action of seizing the vehicle and the subsequent proceedings implied a belief that an excise offense was likely or imminent.