Special statutory seizure procedures control detention of goods, and general police action cannot bypass GST, Customs, or criminal law safeguards.

Where a special fiscal or customs statute prescribes the conditions for search, seizure and proceedings, general police action cannot bypass that framework. The Assam GST Act and the Customs Act require the competent officer to have the requisite reasons to believe and to act under the prescribed procedure before detention or seizure can be sustained; mere reference to possible GST violations or smuggling is insufficient. A seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure must also comply with its mandatory reporting requirement to the jurisdictional Magistrate, failing which retention lacks authority. The matter must therefore be dealt with by the competent authorities under the applicable enactment.

---

---

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, the Customs Act, or the Indian Penal Code without following the special statutory procedures; (ii) whether seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure could justify retention of the goods without compliance with the prescribed reporting requirement; (iii) whether the matter required action by the GST authorities, the police authorities, or the Customs authorities in accordance with their respective enactments.

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, the Customs Act, or the Indian Penal Code without following the special statutory procedures.

Analysis: The power of inspection, search and seizure under the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act operates only when the proper officer has reasons to believe that tax has been evaded or that goods or documents relevant to proceedings under the Act are secreted. Likewise, the Customs Act requires reasons to believe before search, seizure, arrest, or confiscation can be undertaken. On the facts, the police authorities could not justify continued detention merely by referring to possible GST violations or alleged smuggling unless the competent authorities acted under the respective enactments and followed the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion: The police authorities could not lawfully continue detention and seizure on the basis of GST or Customs allegations without the competent authorities acting under the relevant special statutes.

Issue (ii): whether seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure could justify retention of the goods without compliance with the prescribed reporting requirement.

Analysis: A seizure made under the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed by the statutory reporting requirement to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Any seizure under that provision remains subject to the procedure prescribed by the Code, and failure to comply with that safeguard renders the detention without authority.

Conclusion: Retention of the trucks and goods could not be justified under the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the mandatory statutory procedure was followed.

Issue (iii): whether the matter required action by the GST authorities, the police authorities, or the Customs authorities in accordance with their respective enactments.

Analysis: The Court treated the matter as one requiring the competent authorities to decide, within a short time, whether proceedings were to be initiated under the GST Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, or the Customs Act. In view of the possible customs implications and bio-security concerns, the Customs authorities were to take a call under the Customs Act, while any criminal or tax proceedings had to proceed strictly under their own statutory framework.

Conclusion: The matter had to be dealt with by the competent authorities strictly under the relevant enactments, and the detention would fail if no such lawful action was taken.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment was modified, the appeal was disposed of with interim retention for a limited period, and the legality of continued detention depended on timely action by the competent authorities under the applicable statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal or customs statute prescribes the conditions and manner for search, seizure, and further proceedings, general police action cannot be used to bypass that statutory framework; any seizure under the criminal procedure law must also comply with its mandatory safeguards.

---