Statutory seizure safeguards control detention of goods and vehicles; police cannot bypass GST, customs or criminal procedure requirements.

A fiscal statute with its own inspection, search and seizure framework must be followed before the police can continue detention of goods and vehicles for alleged tax violations. Under the Assam GST Act, the proper officer must record reasons to believe and authorise action under Section 67; under the Customs Act, search and seizure, and any arrest or confiscation, must proceed through the statutory mechanism. Seizure under the CrPC can also sustain detention only if the mandatory reporting requirements are complied with. The note emphasises that police cannot bypass these self-contained procedures, and detention becomes unauthorized if the relevant statutory safeguards are not invoked or followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the police could continue detention and seizure of the goods and trucks on the basis of alleged violation of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without invoking the procedure under that Act; (ii) Whether the police could continue detention and seizure on the basis of alleged violation of the Customs Act, 1962 without following the search, seizure, arrest and confiscation procedure prescribed under that Act; (iii) Whether seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could sustain the detention in the absence of compliance with the statutory requirements governing seizure and reporting to the Magistrate.

Issue (i): Whether the police could continue detention and seizure of the goods and trucks on the basis of alleged violation of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without invoking the procedure under that Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 67 of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, to record reasons to believe before authorising inspection, search or seizure for GST contraventions. The record did not show that the State GST authorities had invoked that mechanism or followed the prescribed procedure. In that situation, continuation of detention by the police on a supposed GST infraction was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The detention and seizure could not be sustained on the basis of an uninvoked GST proceeding.

Issue (ii): Whether the police could continue detention and seizure on the basis of alleged violation of the Customs Act, 1962 without following the search, seizure, arrest and confiscation procedure prescribed under that Act.

Analysis: Sections 100 and 101 of the Customs Act, 1962 contemplate prior reasons to believe before search and the subsequent statutory steps for seizure, arrest or confiscation. The Court held that if the goods were suspected to be smuggled or otherwise liable to confiscation, the Customs authorities had to act under the Customs Act itself. The police could not retain the goods and trucks on the footing of Customs violations without the matter being taken forward under that enactment.

Conclusion: The detention and seizure could not be continued merely on the basis of alleged Customs violations without resort to the Customs Act procedure.

Issue (iii): Whether seizure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could sustain the detention in the absence of compliance with the statutory requirements governing seizure and reporting to the Magistrate.

Analysis: Although the police could investigate cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code, any seizure under Section 102(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had to be followed by the report required by Section 102(3). The absence of such compliance would render the continued detention without authority. The Court therefore confined any police action to the criminal process under the Code and left release to follow lawful seizure, if any, under that procedure.

Conclusion: A seizure under the criminal procedure could survive only if the statutory safeguards were followed; otherwise the detention was unauthorized.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment was modified. The goods were directed to remain with the police for a limited period to enable the competent GST, police and Customs authorities to proceed under their respective laws, and failing such lawful action the detention and seizure would stand declared illegal and unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute provides a self-contained mechanism for inspection, search and seizure, the police cannot bypass that mechanism and continue detention unless action is taken under the relevant statute or under the criminal procedure in strict compliance with its mandatory safeguards.

---