Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Mere Possession or Transportation of Black Jaggery Not an Offense Under Excise Act: Telangana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Telangana High Court, under Justice C. V. Bhaskar Reddy, has ruled on a writ petition filed by New Lucky Kirana and General Store, challenging the confiscation order issued by the Prohibition and Excise Department. The case centers around the seizure of 4998 kgs of black jaggery and 3600 kgs of alum from the petitioner’s shop.

New Lucky Kirana and General Store, a proprietary business, had its premises raided on March 5, 2024, by the Excise authorities, resulting in the seizure of substantial quantities of black jaggery and alum. The store, operating with valid trade and tax licenses, including registration under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contested the seizure as arbitrary and not in accordance with the due process of law.

Lack of Evidence for Illicit Intent: The court emphasized that mere possession or transportation of black jaggery does not constitute an offense under the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, unless it is proven to be intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor.

Reference to Precedents: The judgment referenced the Full Bench decision in Ganesh Traders and other significant cases such as Athukuri Subba Rao vs. The State of Telangana. The court reiterated the necessity of a "reason to believe" that the seized materials were meant for illicit liquor production before any confiscation could be justified.

Directions for Appeal and Release: The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 46C of the Telangana Excise Act. Additionally, it ordered the provisional release of the seized goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the goods.

Justice Reddy’s observations underscored the importance of strict compliance with legal provisions in excise-related offenses. The court found that the authorities had not adequately demonstrated a reasonable belief that the black jaggery was intended for illicit purposes. This lack of evidence rendered the confiscation arbitrary.

The judgment highlighted the principles laid down in earlier cases, notably the need for concrete evidence to support the seizure of goods suspected to be used in illegal activities. The court’s insistence on due process and legal compliance serves as a critical reminder of the limits of excise authority powers.

Conclusion The Telangana High Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the protection of lawful trade practices against arbitrary governmental actions. By directing the release of the seized goods and allowing the petitioner to challenge the confiscation through proper legal channels, the court has reinforced the importance of due process.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2024

New Lucky Kirana and General Store vs. State of Telangana

 

Latest Legal News