TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Check Postnear Wayanad and found seven bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and three bottles of Whisky, apart from four bottles of Brandy. 3. The authorities have registered Crime No.32/2009for the alleged offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and arrested the driver alone who, in any event, later got acquitted. 4. As far as the vehicle is concerned, initially it was subjected to seizure and later released to the petitioner on his providing the bank guarantee in terms of Exhibit P2judgment of this Court. Finally, through Exhibit P5, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise exercising his powers under Section 67B of the Act confiscated the vehicle. Aggrieved, though the petitioner filed a statutory appeal, the Additional Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorities concerned. 9. Indeed, the facts are not in dispute. The vehicle as well as its inmates belongs to Karnataka. The driver has gone on record stating that at the behest of the in mates of the car he purchased those bottles of liquor in Karnataka. Presumably, the inmates of the car desired to have a stopover in this State on route to Tamil Nadu, spend their holiday, and then proceed further. 10. As can be seen from Exhibit P4 reply issued by the petitioner in response to Exhibit P3 show cause notice and also the subsequent proceedings either before the primary authority or before the appellate authority, he has consistently pleaded that he had no knowledge. On the other hand, he is said to have given strict instructions to the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... events which are quite probable, it is hard to believe that the petitioner has any knowledge of, much less any complexity in, the offence alleged to have been committed by his driver. 13. This Court, in fact, has tellingly observed in Ravichandran v. Excise Inspector 2015 (1) KLT 218 that merely for the reason that the burden to establish the facts under Section67C(2) of the Act are fastened on the owner, it cannot be said that the authorised officer is not bound to satisfy that the vehicle has been used for the commission of offence with the knowledge of the owner. It is profitable to extract the pertinent observation of the learned Single Judge, and it reads as follows: "2. [Section 67C of the Act prohibits confiscation, if the use of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said that the authorised officer is not bound to satisfy that the vehicle has been used for commission of offence with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or the person in charge of the vehicle or that the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. As such, even in the absence of any evidence from the owner, the authorised officer is duty bound to consider all the relevant aspects to satisfy that the vehicle has been used for commission of the offence with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or the person in charge of the vehicle or that the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions....