Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: 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