TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows revision, petitioner can seek truck release. Deputy Commissioner can proceed with confiscation independently.</h1> <h3>Mrs. Tripti Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand</h3> Mrs. Tripti Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand - TMI Issues:1. Confiscation of truck under the Essential Commodities Act2. Validity of confiscation proceeding initiated by Deputy Commissioner3. Jurisdiction of the court for release of vehicle or goods4. Detention of vehicle in police station premises5. Procedure for release of the truckAnalysis:Issue 1: Confiscation of truck under the Essential Commodities ActThe revision was filed against the order rejecting the release of a truck in connection with a criminal case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner argued that the confiscation of the truck was in contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as the specific order violated was not mentioned in the FIR. The court noted that the confiscation was based on the absence of valid documents for transportation, specifically the E-way bill number and Eff., and initiated by the Deputy Commissioner.Issue 2: Validity of confiscation proceeding initiated by Deputy CommissionerThe Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the release of the truck, citing that the confiscation proceeding was initiated under Section 6-A(c) of the Essential Commodities Act. It was emphasized that the petitioner should raise defense points before the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, as per Section 6-E of the Act, which bars the court's jurisdiction for release in such cases.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the court for release of vehicle or goodsThe court highlighted that the confiscation proceeding was not under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act but under the Essential Commodities Act. It emphasized the need for the competent authority to determine if the confiscation under Section 6-A(c) was justified without any violation of state orders or notifications.Issue 4: Detention of vehicle in police station premisesConcern was raised about the prolonged detention of the truck in the police station premises, exposing it to damage over time. It was noted that such detention serves no purpose and causes losses to the owner and the state revenue due to non-compliance with commercial vehicle regulations.Issue 5: Procedure for release of the truckThe court allowed the petitioner to file an application in the lower court with relevant documents. If found in order, the truck could be released on an indemnity bond with specified conditions. The court directed the preparation of a panchnama and photographs of the vehicle before release, with the imposition of additional terms as deemed fit.In conclusion, the court set aside the previous order and allowed the revision while clarifying that the Deputy Commissioner could continue with the confiscation proceeding independently. The petitioner was directed to participate in the proceeding without prejudice from the court's release order.
TaxTMI 