Dipak Logistics And Forwarders Kharghar Through Its Partner And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharshtra And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the circular issued by the Collector, Palghar, on January 19, 2018, which relied on the Gujarat notification dated June 11, 2010, was liable to be quashed and set aside. The reasoning was that the Gujarat High Court had already declared the relevant rules (Rule 44-BB of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, and Rule 71 of Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010) and the notification dated June 11, 2010, as null and void. Therefore, it was impermissible for the Collector to place reliance on these invalidated provisions. The Court found no logical reason to overlook the Gujarat High Court's judgment. It further held that the policy regulating the transportation of sand could not be made applicable to the transportation of Ready Mix Plaster, which is a processed final product attracting 18% GST. The Court also noted that the revenue authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 48(8)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, by not producing the seized vehicles before the Collector within 48 hours, causing prejudice and financial loss to the petitioners. Consequently, the circular and the consequent actions were quashed, and the seized vehicles and material were ordered to be released. The State was directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each petition.

Facts

The petitioners, Dipak Logistics and Forwarders and Shiv Enterprise, challenged instructions issued by the Collector, Palghar, prohibiting the transportation of Ready Mix Plaster from Gujarat to Maharashtra. The Collector relied on a Gujarat State notification dated June 11, 2010, concerning sand transportation. The petitioners' trucks were apprehended by the Tahasildar, Dahanu, who alleged illegal transportation of sand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,99,400/-. The petitioners argued that Ready Mix Plaster, a processed final product containing approximately 88% processed sand and 11-12% fly ash, attracts GST at 18%, unlike minor mineral sand which does not attract GST. They contended that the policy for sand transportation and royalty/penalty should not apply to their product. Furthermore, they highlighted that the Gujarat High Court had previously quashed the Gujarat notification and related rules upon which the Collector's instructions were based.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prohibition on transportation of sand under the Gujarat notification dated June 11, 2010, and subsequently amended rules, is applicable to the transportation of Ready Mix Plaster from Gujarat to Maharashtra, considering that Ready Mix Plaster is a processed final product attracting GST? 2. Whether the action of the revenue authorities, including the apprehension of vehicles and imposition of penalty, is vitiated by reliance on a Gujarat notification and rules that have been declared null and void by the Gujarat High Court? 3. Whether the revenue authorities followed the procedural requirements under Section 48(8)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, regarding the production of seized vehicles before the Collector within 48 hours? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that Ready Mix Plaster is a distinct final product, not mere sand, and attracts GST. They contended that the Gujarat notification and rules, which were the basis for the Collector's instructions, were quashed by the Gujarat High Court in Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya v. State of Gujarat. Therefore, reliance on these invalidated provisions was impermissible. They also argued that the procedural mandate under Section 48(8)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was not followed. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue/respondents.