Orissa High Court Upholds Truck Confiscation for Molasses Transport Without Permit, Cites Mandatory Nature of Excise Laws

Cuttack , Odisha – The Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Prabir Kumar Das , upholding the confiscation of his TATA 407 truck. The vehicle was seized for transporting 5,000 kgs of molasses without a valid permit, a violation of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Mr. Harish Tandon and Justice Mr. Murahari Sri Raman , emphasized the mandatory nature of permit requirements for transporting intoxicants like molasses.

Case Background: Seizure and Appeals

The case, WP(C) No. 6233 of 2025, stemmed from the seizure of Mr. Das 's truck (Regd. No. OD-01-AD-1005) on May 18, 2024. Excise officials found 200 tins (5,000 kgs total) of molasses during a search in Mayurbhanj district. The driver could not produce valid documents, leading to the vehicle's seizure under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008.

The Authorized Officer-cum-Superintendent of Excise, Mayurbhanj, ordered the confiscation of the vehicle on August 27, 2024, a decision later affirmed by the Excise Commissioner, Odisha, on January 8, 2025. Mr. Das then approached the High Court challenging these orders.

Petitioner's Arguments: A Plea for Pragmatism

M/s. Bibhuti Ranjan Mohanty, counsel for the petitioner, argued:

* The vehicle was transporting "gur" (jaggery), later found to be molasses, on behalf of M/s. Sai Marketing Agency.

* An invoice could not be produced at the time of seizure due to a non-functioning printer, but an online bill was available and allegedly offered later.

* The authorities should have taken a "pragmatic view" and released the vehicle, especially since the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the exact nature of the goods or the stringent permit requirements for molasses.

* Affidavits were submitted to support the claim of a later-produced online invoice.

State's Counter: Mandatory Compliance and Dubious Affidavits

Mr. Bimbisar Das h, Additional Government Advocate, representing the State, contended:

* The vehicle was carrying molasses, confirmed by a chemical test to be "cane molasses having probable outturn of alcohol," without the necessary permit as mandated by the Odisha Excise Act and Rules.

* The attempt to produce an invoice subsequently was an "afterthought."

* The affidavits submitted by the petitioner were found to be defective and unreliable by the court, with inconsistencies in verification and execution.

* Transporting molasses, an "intoxicant" under the Act, without a permit is a clear violation.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning: Upholding the Law

Justice Murahari Sri Raman , penning the judgment, meticulously analyzed the facts and legal provisions.

Defective Affidavits Raise Doubts

The Court expressed "serious doubt about the execution of the affidavits" submitted by the petitioner, noting discrepancies and lack of proper verification. It cited Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vrs. State of Maharashtra , stating that affidavits are not automatically evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless specific procedures are followed, which were lacking here. The Court found the affidavits "do not inspire credibility" and were "simply filed to misdirect and misguide the Court or the AO."

Mandatory Nature of Permit for Molasses Transport

The judgment heavily emphasized the mandatory nature of permits for importing and transporting molasses, defined as an "intoxicant" under Section 2(t) and 2(x) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008. The Court referred to Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 17 of the Act, and Rules 234 and 240 of the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017, highlighting the negative wording used (e.g., "no intoxicant shall be imported," "molasses shall not be imported except on the strength of a permit"). Citing Supreme Court precedents like Adani Gas Limited Vrs. Union of India and Union of India Vrs. A.K. Pandey , the Court affirmed: > "When the word „shall‟ is juxtaposed with the word „no‟, the provision of the statute is intended to be mandatory. The use of „shall‟ and „no‟ in one sentence in the provision indicates that the provision is indeed mandatory."

The Court also noted the absence of an e-waybill under GST laws, further weakening the petitioner's claim of legitimate transport.

Historical Context and Public Safety

The judgment delved into the rationale behind classifying molasses as an intoxicant, referencing the Uma Enterprises Vrs. State of Odisha case and the Justice B.K. Behera Commission report. This was done to curb the diversion of molasses for illicit liquor production, which has led to tragedies. The Court stated: > "It is to safeguard not only the interest of the State exchequer (taxes) but also citizens from suffering health hazards." And further: > "...molasses, rectified spirit, denatured spirit... are available at low price... there is always a propensity of its misuse by diverting it surreptitiously and using it illegally for making potable alcohol... The State Government therefore is faced with an unenviable task and required to keep a constant vigil..."

Confiscation Powers Under Section 71

The Court found the confiscation under Section 71(3) of the OE Act to be justified. It noted the proviso to Section 71(7), which states that a seized vehicle shall not be released during the pendency of confiscation proceedings, even on application by the owner, unless specific conditions (like payment of compounding amount or market value) are met, which the petitioner did not fulfill.

Limited Scope of Judicial Review

Citing Sarvepalli Ramaiah Vrs. The District Collector, Chittoor District , the Court reiterated that administrative decisions are reviewed under Article 226 only on grounds like perversity, illegality, or irrationality, none of which were found in the lower authorities' orders. > "Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process."

The Verdict: Petition Dismissed

The High Court found no flaw in the conclusions of the Authorized Officer or the Excise Commissioner. The chemical test confirming the substance as molasses with alcohol potential, coupled with the absence of a permit and valid invoice at the time of seizure, led the Court to dismiss the writ petition. The Court concluded: > "...the petitioner could not demonstrate to be false by proffering plausible explanation supported by evidence... this Court does not find any flaw in arriving at the conclusion by the Appellate Authority-Excise Commissioner... sustaining the Order... of the Authorised Officer..."

The judgment underscores the strict interpretation of excise laws concerning the transport of regulated substances like molasses and serves as a stern reminder of the necessity for complete documentation and adherence to permit regulations to avoid severe penalties, including vehicle confiscation.