2015 (10) TMI 714 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision petition - Confiscation of seized vehicle with whiskey bottles - held that - P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the attesting witnesses to prove the seizure. P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are the Excise Officers speak about the seizure and production of seized material. P.W. 3 also speaks to the initiation of confiscation proceeding before the Authorized Officer. But as contemplated under Section 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act, it is necessary that the seized vehicle and also the prohibited goods will have to be produced before the Authorized Officer without any unreasonable delay and it is only on production of said seized property under sub-section (1) of Section 43A that the confiscation proceedings have to continue. Unfortunately, neither P.W. 3 nor P.W. 4 though seized the vehicle and also the prohibited goods, did not comply with the requirements of Section 43A by producing them before the Authorized Officer and therefore, the very initiation of proceeding for confiscation are illegal. This fact was not taken into consideration by the Authorized Officer while passing the order of confiscation, but the learned Session Judge has looked into this aspect and quashed the order of confiscation. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order setting aside confiscation of Autorickshaw carrying liquor.

Analysis:
The State challenged the order setting aside the confiscation of an Autorickshaw carrying liquor. The Autorickshaw was seized after being found with whisky bottles following credible information. Evidence was recorded, and witnesses attested to the seizure and production of the seized material. However, it was noted that the seized vehicle and prohibited goods were not produced before the Authorized Officer promptly as required by Section 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act. This failure to comply with the legal provisions rendered the initiation of the confiscation proceedings illegal. Despite this oversight, the Authorized Officer had passed an order of confiscation, which was subsequently set aside by the Session Court based on this legal flaw. The High Court, upon review, found no grounds to admit the revision petition, as the reasons given by the Session Judge were considered valid. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in confiscation proceedings under the Karnataka Excise Act. It underscores the necessity of promptly producing seized property before the Authorized Officer as mandated by Section 43A. Failure to adhere to these legal requirements can render the initiation of confiscation proceedings illegal, as observed in this case. The decision emphasizes the significance of upholding procedural safeguards to ensure the legality and validity of confiscation actions taken by authorities. The High Court's dismissal of the revision petition underscores the adherence to legal provisions and the importance of procedural correctness in such matters.