When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: 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