Amiyodaya Petrochem Products PVT. LTD. Through Director Harsh Jayesh Rao vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the tanker could be released if the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee equivalent to 50% of the value of the seized goods. The Court referred to the circular dated June 27, 1995, issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supply, State of Gujarat, which permitted the release of seized vehicles upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 6,12,500/- (50% of Rs. 12,23,750/-) for a period of one year to any nationalized bank. Upon furnishing this guarantee, the respondent authority was ordered to release the tanker. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file an undertaking within one week, assuring that the tanker would not be transferred or dealt with in any manner during the pendency of the proceedings before the respondent authority concerning the seizure of the goods. The issue of whether the respondents had the power to seize the tanker was not explicitly decided, but the Court proceeded to grant relief based on the willingness to furnish a bank guarantee.

Facts

The petitioner, Amiyodaya Petrochem Products Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of a tanker (registration No. GJ-06-AX-9629). On August 5, 2019, the tanker was transporting Industrial Fuel Oil from Jay Chem Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, to Sagar Enterprise, Rajkot, with an e-way bill showing goods valued at Rs. 12,23,750/-. Upon rejection of the order by Sagar Enterprise, as the tanker was about to depart, respondent no. 3 seized the tanker and its contents. The seizure was purportedly under the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobile) Order, 2000, read with the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner was subsequently directed by respondent no. 3 to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 12,23,750/- for the release of the tanker, with a restriction on its sale or transfer during the pendency of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent no. 3 had the power to seize the petitioner's tanker under the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobile) Order, 2000, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? 2. What is the appropriate condition for the release of the seized tanker? The petitioner argued that the respondents lacked the authority to seize the tanker under the cited provisions and was incurring significant financial losses due to the seizure. The petitioner expressed willingness to furnish a bank guarantee as specified by the Court for the tanker's release. The respondents, relying on a circular dated June 27, 1995, and a previous High Court order, submitted that the vehicle could be released upon furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to 50% of the value of the seized goods. They also noted that the tanker itself was valued at Rs. 20 lakhs, but the impugned communication demanded a guarantee equal to the value of the goods.