9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 538 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - power of Excise Officials of the Golaghat district to search and seize any IMFL consignments originating from the State of Arunachal Pradesh which is meant for State of Nagaland - HELD THAT - In the present case in hand, it is the Inspector of Excise, Golaghat (Sadar) who initiated the search in the consignments which were on transit from Arunachal Pradesh to Nagaland purportedly through a specified route from Naharlagun in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to Dimapur in the State of Nagaland via State of Assam through Bandordewa, Tezpur and Golaghat as per the consignment notes. The vehicles were seized on 24.11.2019 and on 25.11.2019 for violation of route as it was seized at a place called Telgarom in the Golaghat district. The provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act 2000 are taken note of in order to show the legislative intent and purpose of the Government of Assam in Excise Department vesting the sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment upon the officials of Excise department inasmuch as investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the Police Department, the Superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The report to the learned CJM, Golaghat dated 10.01.2020, records the suspicion of the Excise official about the commission of an offence which he was empowered to investigate due to violation of route indicated in the passes issued by the officials of Arunachal Pradesh. Once such suspicion is recorded, the empowered Excise official is authorized to exercise the power conferred upon a police officer carrying out an investigation under Sections 160-171 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation envisaged in the Act 2000 is the one defined under Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer - the action of the Excise official or officials in breaking the digital lock of the consignments falls under Section 165 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, 2000. Chapter IX of the Act, 2000 prescribes the penalties and procedure for the offences covered by it. For investigation the offences as mentioned in the report of Excise official requires no proof but a prima facie satisfaction is required and not beyond that. Merely, the consignments were exported from a State and imported to another one and there being no applicability in both the States of the Act, 2000 that itself cannot be the ground to hold that the Excise officials had no jurisdiction to carry on the search and seizure of the consignments while on transit through an area covered by the force of the Act, 2000 - The jurisdiction exercised for investigation by the Excise officials of the Golaghat district is proper inasmuch as it evolves out of Section 183 under Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C., 1973 through Sections 42 and the investigation part under Section 43 of the Act, of 2000. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the proceedings under various Excise Cases. 2. Authority of Assam Excise officials to seize consignments in transit from Arunachal Pradesh to Nagaland. 3. Jurisdiction of the Excise officials under the Assam Excise Act, 2000. 4. Maintainability of the writ petitions. 5. Impact on petitioners' rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Validity of the Proceedings: The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the proceedings under various Excise Cases registered against them under Section 53(1)(a) of the Assam Excise Act, 2000 (as amended in 2018). They argued that their consignments of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) were imported and exported under valid permits issued by the respective states of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners contended that there was no contravention of any provisions under the Assam Excise Act, 2000, or the Assam Excise Rules, 2016, and thus the seizure by Assam Excise officials was devoid of authority. 2. Authority of Assam Excise Officials: The petitioners argued that the Assam Excise officials had no authority to seize the consignments as the process of export and import was not initiated nor completed within Assam’s jurisdiction. The consignments were transported through Assam as per the route specified in the excise passes issued by Arunachal Pradesh officials. The respondents, however, argued that the Excise officials acted within their jurisdiction as the consignments violated the specified route and there were anomalies in the physical stock and consignment notes. 3. Jurisdiction of the Excise Officials: The court examined the powers and jurisdiction of the Excise officials under Sections 42 and 43 of the Assam Excise Act, 2000. It was noted that the Excise officials are empowered to investigate offences and exercise powers similar to those of police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court concluded that the Excise officials had the authority to search and seize the consignments during their transit through Assam, as they had reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of an offence under the Act. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions: The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners did not challenge the rejection of their zimma (custody) applications by the Additional CJM, Golaghat. The court, however, held that if the actions of the Excise officials were found to be without jurisdiction, it would render the orders of the Additional CJM infructuous. Thus, the court decided to examine the jurisdictional issue. 5. Impact on Petitioners' Rights under Article 300A: The petitioners claimed that the seizure and non-release of the consignments affected their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to property. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, which held that there is no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor, and such trade can be completely prohibited. Consequently, the court did not accept the petitioners' argument regarding the violation of their rights under Article 300A. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the actions of the Assam Excise officials were within their jurisdiction and authority under the Assam Excise Act, 2000. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and upheld the validity of the proceedings initiated by the Excise officials. The rejection of the zimma applications and the process of confiscation were also deemed appropriate based on the investigation and the chemical analysis report indicating that the IMFL consignments were not fit for human consumption.
|
