M/S Fenny Enterprises vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Fenny Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of seized goods and to provide a lab examination/chemical analysis report. The petitioner's base oil was seized on July 23, 2025, allegedly misidentified as diesel. Despite multiple applications filed by the petitioner for the interim custody of the seized goods between August 6, 2025, and October 11, 2025, and a delay of over 3.5 months in providing the lab report, the respondent authorities had not taken action. The State counsel informed the court that the lab report was prepared on August 14, 2025, but could not specify when it was received by the department.

Held

The Court held that the respondent authorities' inaction in deciding the petitioner's applications for interim custody of seized goods and their failure to provide the lab report for over 3.5 months was a "lackluster attitude" and "highly condemnable." The Court directed the respondent authorities to decide the applications for interim custody of seized goods within one week from the submission of the order's copy, in accordance with the law and applicable Rules of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court also directed the State to supply a photocopy of the lab report dated August 14, 2025, to the petitioner's counsel during the course of the day. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the respondents in the proceedings. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to decide the petitioner's applications for interim custody of seized goods within a reasonable time, thereby violating principles of natural justice and fair play? 2. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to provide the petitioner with a copy of the lab examination/chemical analysis report of the seized goods, hindering the petitioner's ability to file an effective reply and participate in the adjudicatory process? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities had not decided their applications for interim custody of seized goods, filed on multiple dates, and had failed to provide the lab report even after 3.5 months from sample collection. This inaction prevented them from filing a proper reply and ensuring a fair adjudicatory process, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel sought time to seek instructions and later informed the court that the lab report was prepared on August 14, 2025, but could not provide details on its receipt by the department. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the delay in deciding interim custody applications.