Union property immunity bars State motor vehicle tax; good-faith Customs action also shields the officer from prosecution.

Statutory protection applied to a Customs officer who seized and confiscated vehicles in purported exercise of powers under the Customs Act, because the acts were done in good faith under that statute and prosecution was therefore not maintainable. Vehicles that had vested in the Union after confiscation were treated as Union property and, under Article 285, could not be subjected to State motor vehicle tax absent parliamentary authorisation. On that basis, the tax demand was unsustainable and the continuation of the criminal proceedings was held to be an abuse of process, with the cognizance proceedings and non-bailable warrant quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution could be launched against a Customs officer for seizure and confiscation of vehicles done in purported exercise of powers under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether vehicles confiscated to the Union could be subjected to tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 in view of Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution could be launched against a Customs officer for seizure and confiscation of vehicles done in purported exercise of powers under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The vehicles were seized in the course of official action under the Customs Act and were later confiscated to the Government. Once the action was shown to be taken in pursuance of the Customs Act and in good faith, the statutory protection against suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings operated in favour of the officer.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner was not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether vehicles confiscated to the Union could be subjected to tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 in view of Article 285 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Property of the Union is constitutionally exempt from State taxation unless Parliament otherwise provides. The confiscated vehicles had become property of the Central Government, and therefore could not be treated as taxable property for levy of State motor vehicle tax.

Conclusion: The demand for tax could not be sustained against the petitioner or the Union property.

Final Conclusion: The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, and the cognizance proceedings together with the non-bailable warrant were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Property that has vested in the Union is immune from State taxation under Article 285, and statutory acts done in good faith in pursuance of the Customs Act are protected from prosecution by the immunity provision in that Act.

---