SRI J S ANANTHA PADAMANABHA V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/14108/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. J.S. Anantha Padmanabha, the proprietor of Bharath Trades, who challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, which forfeited 256 bags of rice intended for the Public Distribution System. The rice was seized during an inspection on 02.01.2014, following a tip-off about illegal stocking and transportation of rice by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner’s order also involved the release of a seized lorry upon payment of Rs.5,10,000. The petitioner argued that the seizure was unjustified, citing permits and tax documents that purportedly supported his legal compliance. However, the court found that the documents did not substantiate the legality of the rice's transportation and stocking at the time of seizure.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726776 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Karnataka Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: LAXMI NARAYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A RAO
• Keywords: Forfeiture; Public Distribution System; Seizure; Writ petition; Illegal Stocking; Transporting Rice
• Section: 19

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.14108/2015(GM-EC) BETWEEN: SRI. J.S. ANANTHA PADAMANABHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O A. SUBBARAMAN PROPRIETOR OF BHARTH TRADES, BANGARPET KOLAR DIST. 563 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DIST, KOLAR – 563 101. 2. THE TAHASILDAR BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, AGA (MA NOT FILED)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-K DT.29.10.2014 PASSED BY R-1 IN ECA.CR/24/2013-14 ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COST AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure – K) in forfeiting the seizure of 256 bags of rice which were meant for Public Distribution System through Fair Price Shops. Further, released seized lorry vehicle bearing No.KA-08-6237 after depositing sum of Rs.5,10,000/- through demand draft. 2. Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Sri Bharath Traders which is situated at Bangarpet, Kolar District. He had the trade license so also tax certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bangarpet and further, license issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). Petitioner is stated to have purchased rice to the extent of 266 quintals on 01.10.2012 and 02.10.2012 (200+66). The respondent had information that on 02.01.2014, petitioner was illegally transporting and stocking rice bags in Elemalla Road, Bangarpet. On receipt of such information, 2nd respondent along with Deputy 3 Director of Food and Civil Supplies Department, Kolar inspected the premises of the petitioner. The godown called as Bharath Trading Company was inspected and found illegal stocking of 137 rice bags in the godown and further, vehicle bearing No.KA-08-6237 which was parked in front of the godown was loaded with 103 rice bags. Thus, over all 256 rice bags was seized by the respondent in terms of Order 19 of the Karnataka Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 (Hereinafter referred to as “Order, 1992” for short) which empowers the competent statutory authority to search and seize illegal essential commodities. 3. Respondents issued notice on 21.07.2014 for which there was no response from the petitioner. Thereafter, one more notice was issued on 31.07.2014 (Annexure – H) for which petitioner is stated to have submitted reply vide Annexure – J dated nil and it is not acknowledged by the respondents. In support of the petitioner’s claim, he has submitted three documents dated 01.10.2012, 02.10.2012 4 and 17.04.2014 which are permits issued by the APMC and Commercial Tax Officer (Annexures – E, F and G) respectively. After due examination of the records and after hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, proceeded to pass the impugned order relating to forfeiture of 256 bags of rice seized on 02.01.2014 and further, release of lorry bearing No.KA-08-6327 on production of demand draft for sum of Rs.5,10,000/-. Petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure – K), presented this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to take note of the bills relating to purchase of rice and the permits issued by the APMC and the transaction made by the petitioner has been taken note of by the Commercial Tax Office (Annexure – G). Therefore, impugned order requires to be set-aside and matter be remanded for fresh enquiry. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on 02.01.2014, rice bags and lorry were 5 seized for which there is no response from the petitioner in respect of release of materials. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.07.2014 for which there was no response from him. Further, one more notice was issued on 31.07.2014 for which petitioner is stated to have furnished reply dated nil (Annexure – J). The permits issued by the APMC and CTO i.e., documents vide Annexures – E to G are not relevant for the reason that as on the date of seizure of the material and lorry on 02.01.2014, petitioner did not have the requisite documents like bills, permit and other documents relating to transportation of rice from one godown to another. Consequently, Deputy Commissioner has rightly drawn an inference that the petitioner failed to furnish relevant documents as on 02.01.2014 and further, no reply to the notice dated 21.07.2014, 31.07.2014. The permits and the bills do not suffice to hold that seizure of rice material is with reference to the bills relating to 2012. Petitioner has failed to furnish appropriate documents including Income Tax Returns and other materials to establish that why the rice which was purchased for the 6 year 2012 was not disbursed in the manner of selling them up to 02.01.2014. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Undisputed facts are that on 02.01.2014, respondents have seized 256 bags of rice while invoking Order 19 of Order, 1992. Such seizure is in front of the petitioner’s godown. In other words, certain amount of bags was seized from the godown and some from the lorry. If the petitioner is stocking certain rice in the godown, he is bound to show the records so as to demonstrate that stocking of rice is genuine and it is in accordance with law. Similarly, rice loaded in the lorry also is not supported by any material information like permit to transport the loaded rice as on 02.01.2014. Petitioner is relying on the permits issued on 01.10.2012, 02.10.2012 and further, transaction made by the petitioner as on 17.07.2014 which is a certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer. The aforesaid documents do not support that the seizure of the rice bags and lorry had valid documents as on 02.01.2014 7 for transportation of seized Rice bags. Thus, petitioner has not made out case so as to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure – K). In the light of the above factual aspects petitioner has not made out case so as to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Brn "