L KASHI NATH Vs. COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a part nership firm which carries on business in gold ornaments and articles of gold under the name and style of M/s Lala Kashi Nath Seth at Lucknow. The peti tioner firm is a licensed dealer under the Gold Control Act, 1968. It is autho rised to acquire ownership, possession, custody and control of gold, ornaments and articles of gold in accordance with the provisions of the Gold Control Act. On 27th April, 1971 at about 11 a.m. Superintendent of the Central Excise Department, Lucknow and other officers took a search of the petitioner's business premises. In the course of search, the 1972 AIL/2 I G-17 officers of the Excise Department found ornaments kept on the ground floor for sale for which there was no licence, the account books of the firm were not maintained for certain period and the forms prescribed under the Gold Control Act were also not maintained. One piece of foreign gold was found from the possession of one of the artisans working at the business premises of the petitioner. The officers of the Excise Department took into custody 2583 pieces of ornaments which weighed 22151.370 grams. These goods were seized and taken in boxes and deposited with the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner protested against the search of his premises and seizure of the aforesaid goods but the officers of the Excise Department did not release the goods. The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition challenging the search and also the seizure of ornaments from his shop.

(2.) THE Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, Superintendent Gold, Luck-now and Superintendent Technical, Lucknow are opposite parties in the writ petition. According to the counter affidavit of Assistant Collector, Central Excise, the Department received reliable information that the petitioner was deal ing in foreign gold and, therefore, a raid was organized to find out the truth of the information received. On 27th April, 1971 a raiding party consisting of Sri G. Bhusan, Superintendent, Central Excise, Lucknow, Miss Dolly Saxena and Sri A. C. Srivastava raided the- petitioner's busi ness premises under a search authorisa tion issued under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Lucknow. During the raid the officers of the Excise Department found 275 pieces of gold ornaments from the ground floor por tion of the petitioner's shop which was not a part of his licensed premises and for which he had not applied even for a licence. A piece of foreign gold was recovered from the possession of one Shaukat Husain who was working on the second floor of the licensed premises of the petitioner. The repair register. Gold Control Forms and Stock Registers were not maintained as required by Section 55 of the Gold Control Act read with Fees and Miscellaneous Matter Rules, 1968. Forms Nos. GS-10, GS-11 and GS-12 were not maintained in accordance with law, inasmuch as Form GS- 10 was found written up to 18th April. 1971 and no entries were made for the period from 19th April, 1971 up to 26th April, 1971. Form GS-11 was maintained up to 17th April, 1971 and no entries were made therein for the subsequent period. Form GS-12 was maintained in respect of 71 items only up to 1st April, 1971. In respect of two items it was main tained up to 11th April, 1971 and there after no entries were made. Form GS-12 was further maintained in res pect of two items only up to 17th April, 1971 and in respect of four items accounts were written up to 18th April, 1971. The petitioner firm failed to maintain register of artisans at all as required in Form GS-14. In view of these allegations and irregularities, peti tioners' stock of ornaments was seized under Section 66 of the Gold Control Act. Excise Department proposes to investigate into the entire case and to issue show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 79 of the Gold Control Act and to adjudicate the matter under Section 78 of the Act. The search and seizure according to the opposite parties was done in accordance with the provi sions contained in the Gold Control Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act and that no illegality was committed by the officers in seizing the Articles. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that since no final orders have been passed and as the Department has yet to investigate and adjudicate the case against the petitioner, the petition is premature and after the final adjudi cation has been done, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal and re vision to higher authorities prescribed under the Act; the petitioners are. there fore, not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) SRI S. N. Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioner has, in the first place, urged that the petitioner did not violate any provision of the Act or the rules framed there under and he has committed no offence; hence, the opposite parties had no authority to seize the petitioner's ornaments. The power of seizure according to the learn ed counsel is exercisable within the limits provided by Section 66 of the Act and the respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction in seizing petitioner's entire stock of ornaments. In order to appre ciate the contention, it is necessary to examine the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which Parliament enacted the Act.