2016 (10) TMI 659 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds Food Safety Officer's search authority; dismisses petition for lack of merit.

Nigetha Trading Company Versus The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Food Protection and Drugs Administration Department, The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes And Others

Nigetha Trading Company Versus The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Food Protection and Drugs Administration Department, The Assistant Commissioner Commercial ... Issues Involved:1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the respondents.2. Jurisdiction and powers of the Food Safety Officer under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.3. Compliance with procedural requirements and regulations by the respondents.4. Legitimacy of the petitioner’s business operations and documentation.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the respondents:The petitioner argued that the search and seizure conducted on 01.03.2016 by the fifth respondent and others were illegal as it was done without a search warrant, prior notice, or the presence of the proprietor. The petitioner claimed that samples were taken without consent and the premises were locked and sealed without jurisdiction and without following mandatory procedures under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.2. Jurisdiction and powers of the Food Safety Officer under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:The petitioner contended that the fifth respondent failed to adhere to Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which outlines the powers of the Food Safety Officer. The respondents, however, argued that Section 38 empowers the Food Safety Officer to take samples and seize any article of food that appears to be in contravention of the Act. They also cited Rule 2.1.3(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, which allows the Food Safety Officer to seal premises for investigation if compliance with Section 38(1)(c) is not possible.3. Compliance with procedural requirements and regulations by the respondents:The respondents maintained that the search and seizure were conducted following the law. They claimed that they received complaints about the petitioner’s company dealing in adulterated edible oil, which prompted the inspection. The respondents took samples and sent them for analysis, which revealed that the samples did not conform to edible oil parameters. They also issued a notice to the petitioner to produce purchase and sales bills, which the petitioner failed to comply with before filing the writ petition.4. Legitimacy of the petitioner’s business operations and documentation:The petitioner asserted that it had the necessary licenses to trade in non-edible oils and that its operations were legitimate. However, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to produce documents to prove the legitimacy of its business operations. The petitioner’s inability to provide the required documentation led the court to conclude that the writ petition was premature and lacked merit.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Food Safety Officer has the authority under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, to take samples and seize articles of food. The court also emphasized that the petitioner failed to produce necessary documents to establish the legitimacy of its business operations. The dismissal of the writ petition does not preclude the fifth respondent from considering the petitioner’s representation and proceeding according to the law. The petitioner is required to provide any requested documents to the respondents to facilitate further investigation.