IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34697 of 2014 BETWEEN K.Ramesh AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner states that he carries on business in the name of style of Sri Mahalaxmi Jaggery & General Merchant, under valid licence issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, vide TIN No.28649055942. It is further stated that his stocks as well as the shop were seized by respondent No.3 on 05.11.2014 in spite of the fact that the stock is covered by valid wholesale licence. He also states that a case in PCOR No.539/14 and 15 was registered for the offence under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 as well as Clauses 3 and 4 of the GUR (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968. Petitioner seeks that the stoppage of business by seizing of the stock is wholly unwarranted and the petitioner is deprived of the shop as well as the godown and all the goods lying there.
3. Instructions received by the learned government pleader show that the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), Mahaboobnagar raided the house of Matta Mahesh, who has further revealed that he supplied Jaggery etc., for manufacture of I.D.liquor, and that the petitioner is allegedly the manufacturer. Hence, the case was registered against him on 05.11.2014 vide crime No.539/14 and 15, referred to above.
4. Evidently, since the crime is already registered, whether the action of respondent No.3 taken against the petitioner is valid or not is a matter for adjudication before the competent criminal court. In the meanwhile, if petitioner desires to seek release of the seized stocks, he must approach the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 46(e) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968.
5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the Deputy Commissioner and, if any such application is made, the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.2, shall consider the same, on its own merits, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 21, 2014 LMV