Gourishetty Srinivas vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in harassing the petitioner by interfering with his business in jaggery being carried on under valid licence and also seizing jaggery and alum even after production of bills and way bills evidencing that it was purchased under bills and transported under way bills, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s business or seize the stocks.

Heard Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondents.

Petitioner contends that he is carrying on business as a Kirana General Merchant by obtaining valid certificate of registration from Commercial Taxes Authorities; that as per the said certificate of registration, he is permitted to deal in various commodities including jaggery; that dealing in jaggery or possessing jaggery is neither prohibited nor is considered as a contraband for the respondents-authorities to interfere with the business.

Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities basing on the confessional statements of Accused No.1, in COR.No.566/2015-16, conducted search at the petitioner’s premises and found only jaggery in a quantity of 7,480 kgs, and seized the same under a cover of panchanama, dt.19.12.2015, and thereafter arrayed the petitioner as one of the accused in the said crime.

Petitioner would, firstly, contend that he is carrying on lawful business in jaggery by obtaining necessary permissions from the concerned authorities; that merely on the ground of his possessing jaggery of 7,480 kgs, the authorities cannot affect seizure, much less, array the petitioner as an accused in the above crime; and that such action of the respondents interfering in the conduct of business by the petitioner is in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.

By the said counter, the respondents seek to justify their action by stating as under:

“4. In reply to para 4, it is submitted that the owner of the Jaggery has not produced any valid documents pertaining to his shop and selling of Jaggery i.e., way bills, etc., at the time of raid on the shop by the officials on the confession of accused persons.”

Placing reliance on the contents of the counter, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Proh. & Excise, that the petitioner at the time of raid, did not produce any valid documents pertaining to his shop in relation to purchase and sale of Jaggery i.e., invoices/bills and way bills. He would further contended that basing on the confession statement of accused No.1, petitioner’s shop was raided and seized low quality Jaggery from his shop and arrayed the petitioner as one of the accused in COR.No.566/2015-16, and that the respondents are not interfering with the business of any person, without receiving any complaint from any corner.

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of this Court in WP.No.31519 of 2016, dt.19.04.2022, wherein this Court had held that dealing in black jaggery or alum is neither prohibited nor regulated in any manner to contend that the respondents-authorities cannot interfere with the conduct of the business permitted by law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Government Memo No.47802/Ex.III.1/2006-13 dt.20-12-2010 whereby it was reckoned that black jaggery is an agricultural produce or its bio-product. He would contend that when the respondents admit to the fact of Black Jaggery not being considered as contraband, the authorities cannot affect the seizure unless and until it is found at the time of search or raid that the said goods are being used for the production of I.D. liquor.

I have taken note of the contentions urged as above.

Admittedly, petitioner herein is a registered dealer under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and is permitted to deal in various commodities, including jaggery, as is evident from the certificate of registration granted from the concerned authorities, which inter alia includes jaggery.

The mere fact of possession of 7,480 kgs of jaggery per se would not make the petitioner liable for any action being taken by the respondents, unless the petitioner fails to produce the invoices of purchases on being asked to do so.

Though the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner did not produce way bills at the time when the petitioner’s shop was raided, it is to be noted that under the provisions of the VAT Act, the dealer is required to produce way bills only when such goods are sold to another dealer, and not otherwise, i.e., for retail sale.

Further, what the authorities have forgotten to call upon the petitioner is, to produce the invoices/bills of purchase of jaggery as per GUR (Regulation of Use) Order,1968.

Though the respondents claim that the petitioner has not produced way bills, etc., no material is placed before this Court along with the counter filed to show that despite the respondents-authorities asking the petitioner to produce the bills in relation to purchase and sale of jaggery, petitioner having failed to produce the same. On the other hand, petitioner by the affidavit filed into this Court has categorically asserted that he is carrying on the business under valid bills.

Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in WP.No.31519 of 2016, dt.19.04.2022, had dealt with the issue of respondents interfering with the business activity of dealers registered under the Act and dealing in black jaggery and alum, when such activities are legally permitted to be carried on by obtaining necessary permission and licenses.

Under the guise of implementing the noble intention of State Government to eradicate manufacture and sale of ID liquor, without adhering to due process of law, the respondents-authorities cannot interfere with the life and liberty of the persons, as also, the right to carry on trade or profession, which is not prohibited otherwise under any law. Inasmuch as sale of black jaggery by a trader is neither prohibited nor regulated in any manner, the Authorities under the guise of stopping manufacturing and sale of ID liquor cannot interfere with the conduct of business of a trader who has been granted valid permissions/registrations, and paying taxes due to the concerned authority on its purchase and sale as the case may be.

Since, the petitioner in the present case is also a registered dealer having valid certificate of registration and permitted to trade in jaggery, in the absence of the respondents placing before this Court of having issued any notice to petitioner under Rule 5 of GUR (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968 to furnish particulars of his purchases and sales along with supporting bills/invoices, mere claim of the respondents in the counter affidavit that petitioner is storing large quantity of black jaggery and not producing way bills, etc., cannot be accepted and thus the consequent action of the respondents raiding the business premises of the petitioner and seizing the stock of jaggery, in the view of this Court, amounts to interfering with the conduct of lawful business of the petitioner, and such action is to be held as in contravention of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner as well as lawful business being carried on by him except in accordance with law or till such a time the said activity of sale is not otherwise prohibited by the State. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.