9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 229 - HC - GSTSeeking release of the goods seized by the police on Supardari - concealment of goods in the vehicles which were without any bill - evasion of payment of tax in connivance with officials of Excise and Taxation Department - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order would show that the trial Court has accepted the application on the premises that the applicant claims himself to be the owner of the goods which in fact is an incorrect observation inasmuch as there is no specific averment as regards ownership of goods in the application made by the respondent for release of the articles on supardari. In any case, it goes without saying that the articles some of which would be of semi-perishable nature ought to be released on supardari lest the value of the same may be drastically diminished. Since, no person has come forward to stake his claim qua ownership of the said goods and on the other hand the transporter has come forward to seek possession of the goods on supardari, the application in this regard can be accepted and deserves to be accepted. This Court is of the opinion that some strict conditions need to be imposed for the purpose of releasing the said goods on supardari. As such, it is ordered that the goods be released on supardari to the respondent subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order releasing seized goods on 'Supardari'. 2. Ownership and possession of the seized goods. 3. Conditions for releasing the goods on 'Supardari'. Summary of Judgment: 1. Legality of the order releasing seized goods on 'Supardari': The petitioner-State of Punjab challenged the order dated 05.01.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which accepted the respondent's application for the release of goods seized by the police on 'Supardari'. The FIR was lodged under Sections 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Amendment) Act 2018, and Sections 420, 120-B IPC, based on secret information about tax evasion involving unbilled goods. 2. Ownership and possession of the seized goods: The respondent moved an application before the Special Judge for the release of the seized articles, claiming possession as a transporter, not as an owner. The trial court erroneously noted that the respondent "claims" to be the owner, whereas the respondent clarified his role as a transporter willing to make a specific statement to this effect before the Court. 3. Conditions for releasing the goods on 'Supardari': The Court agreed to release the goods on 'Supardari' but imposed strict conditions: - The respondent must submit an FDR equal to 50% of the MRP of the goods. - A list of goods along with MRP must be submitted and verified by the State within 7 days. - The trial Court will make a tentative assessment of the goods' value, with the authority to adjust the value based on evidence. - The FDR will remain intact in a nationalized bank and can only be encashed under Court orders. The proceeds will go to the respondent if acquitted or to the petitioner-State if convicted. - An inventory and photographs of the articles must be arranged by the trial Court. - Additional conditions may be imposed by the trial Court at the time of release. Conclusion: The petition is disposed of, and the impugned order is modified to include the conditions for the release of the goods on 'Supardari'. The respondent must furnish an undertaking and a specific statement acknowledging the recovery of the articles from his vehicles.
|
