2018 (8) TMI 1391 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Confiscation of vehicles seized - Section 67B of the Abkari Act - whether the petitioner could be heard to say that since the abkari case charged against him has ended in his acquittal, the process of confiscation, initiated under Section 67B of the Act, should be construed to be effaced? - Held that - It is evident from the way of Section 67B is drafted, the power to order confiscation is an independent power, which is not guided or manacled by the fate of the criminal case registered against the offenders. This is obvious from the manner in which Section 67B opens and to obtain its reading - even in the case of acquittal from a criminal case, if launched, would not be a reason to stop or terminate proceedings under Section 67B. Whether Ext.P5 order has assessed the situation correctly in terms of law and the facts involved and whether it can be found to be tenable in law? - Held that - The Commissioner of Excise, in the said order, has not specifically stated anything as to how he finds that the vehicles in question were involved in the offence alleged - this stand of the Commissioner in Exhibit P5 order to be tenable in law, specially because it is the specific case of the petitioner that the vehicles were not involved in such an offence and in particular that one among the vehicles was, in fact, parked at the side of the road when it was seized - the Commissioner has a duty to consider this contention and to evaluate it on its merits, before concluding that the proceedings for confiscation is legally valid or otherwise. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram at 11 a.m. on 16.07.2018 with all materials and documents that he intends to present before the said Authority and the said Authority will offer him an opportunity of being heard - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the confiscation order under Section 67B of the Abkari Act should be set aside due to the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case.
2. Whether the Ext.P5 order correctly assessed the situation in terms of law and facts involved.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner argued that since the criminal case against him ended in acquittal, the confiscation orders should be set aside. However, the court clarified that the power to order confiscation under Section 67B is independent of the criminal case's outcome. Citing Section 67B, the court emphasized that the confiscation process is not tied to the fate of the criminal case. Referring to a previous judgment, the court affirmed that even if acquitted in a criminal case, proceedings under Section 67B can continue. Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner's argument based on the legal provisions and precedents.

Issue 2:
Regarding the validity of the Ext.P5 order, the court noted that the Commissioner of Excise did not provide specific reasoning on how the vehicles were involved in the alleged offense. The order merely mentioned completion of confiscation proceedings without detailing the basis for finding the vehicles guilty. The petitioner contended that one vehicle was parked at the roadside during the seizure, challenging its involvement in the offense. While not validating the petitioner's contentions, the court emphasized the Commissioner's duty to evaluate such claims before confirming confiscation orders. Consequently, the court set aside Ext.P5 to the extent it declared the vehicles' involvement in the offense, directing the Commissioner to reassess the situation and issue final orders within two months after a hearing where the petitioner can present materials and arguments.

In conclusion, the court upheld the independent nature of confiscation proceedings under Section 67B, disregarding the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. It also critiqued the lack of detailed reasoning in the Ext.P5 order and mandated a reevaluation by the Commissioner of Excise, emphasizing a fair hearing for the petitioner before final orders are issued.