Special statutory seizure procedures govern detention of goods; police cannot bypass GST, customs, or CrPC safeguards.

Where a special statute prescribes search, seizure and confiscation procedures, the police cannot continue detention of trucks and goods merely on alleged GST or customs violations without the competent authorities acting under the Assam GST Act or the Customs Act in the manner required by law. A seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure is also unsustainable unless the mandatory report to the Magistrate under Section 102(3) is made. The matter further notes that retained goods may be held only briefly to enable lawful action by the competent authorities, failing which continued detention loses legal support.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the police authorities could continue detention and seizure of the trucks and goods on the basis of alleged violations under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Customs Act, 1962 without invoking the respective statutory procedures; (ii) whether seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was valid without compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement to the Magistrate; and (iii) what consequential directions should follow regarding retention of the seized goods and further action by the concerned authorities.

Issue (i): whether the police authorities could continue detention and seizure of the trucks and goods on the basis of alleged violations under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Customs Act, 1962 without invoking the respective statutory procedures.

Analysis: The statutory schemes under Section 67 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 100 and 101 of the Customs Act, 1962 require the proper or empowered officer to act only upon reasons to believe and to proceed through the prescribed mechanisms for inspection, search, seizure, arrest, or confiscation. The detention of the goods by the police could not be sustained merely by alleging GST or customs violations unless the competent authorities proceeded under the governing enactments in the manner contemplated by law.

Conclusion: The police authorities had no independent authority to continue the detention and seizure on the plea of GST or customs violations without following the respective statutory procedures.

Issue (ii): whether seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was valid without compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement to the Magistrate.

Analysis: A seizure under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be followed by the report contemplated by Section 102(3). In the absence of compliance with that procedural safeguard, continued detention of the trucks and goods could not be treated as lawful. If the police had proceeded in accordance with the Code, the matter would remain governed by the further criminal procedure provisions.

Conclusion: Seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not sustainable unless the mandatory statutory procedure was followed.

Issue (iii): what consequential directions should follow regarding retention of the seized goods and further action by the concerned authorities.

Analysis: Considering the competing claims under the GST law, the CrPC and the Customs Act, and the bio-security concern noticed in the record, the goods were directed to be retained only for a short period to enable the GST authorities, police authorities and Customs authorities to decide their respective courses strictly under the applicable law. Failing such lawful action, the continued detention and seizure would lose legal support.

Conclusion: The detained goods were permitted to remain with the police for seven days for lawful decision by the competent authorities, and in default the detention and seizure would be treated as illegal and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment was modified. The appellants obtained partial relief because the continued detention was made conditional on timely action by the competent authorities under the correct statutory regime, failing which the seizure would stand invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a special procedure for search, seizure and confiscation, the police cannot bypass that procedure, and any seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure must also satisfy its mandatory safeguards.

---