Asif Khan vs. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle was prima facie illegal. The Court reasoned that jaggery is not a prohibited item, and its interstate transport does not, by itself, constitute an excise offense, especially when there is no requirement for a Way Bill under GST Rules for such goods. The suspicion that the jaggery was being transported for the manufacture of illicit liquor was insufficient grounds for seizure at the stage of transport. However, acknowledging that an inquiry is required, the Court directed the release of the seized vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee/Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 50,000/- with the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner was also required to provide an undertaking not to alienate or alter the vehicle's physical features. The RTA authority was to be notified to prevent vehicle transfer without excise department clearance. The release was made subject to the outcome of the inquiry under the Excise Act, and in light of the peculiar situation due to COVID-19. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, Asif Khan, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of his vehicle (bearing No. RJ 11 GA 9096) by the respondents, the State of Telangana and its excise authorities. The seizure occurred on April 22, 2020, in COR No. 87 of 2020. The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and provisions of the Telangana Excise Act. The vehicle was transporting jaggery from Uttar Pradesh to Telangana. The petitioner sought the release of his vehicle. The court noted that jaggery is not a prohibited item and interstate transfer of jaggery does not inherently require a Way Bill under GST Rules, as per e-Way Bill Rules.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle, transporting jaggery, was illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Telangana Excise Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary, violating his fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He also contended that the seizure was contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Excise Act. The petitioner asserted that jaggery is not a prohibited item and its interstate transport does not necessitate a Way Bill under GST Rules, as per the e-Way Bill Rules. The seizure was based on mere suspicion that the goods were intended for illicit liquor manufacture, which he argued does not constitute an excise offense at the stage of transport. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the G.P. for Prohibition & Excise, did not present any arguments recorded in the judgment. The court's order implies that the seizure was based on the suspicion of goods being used for illicit liquor manufacture.