The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court nray be cl':rased to direct the Respondents ' and 2 to release the goods along with vehicle I'1o.AP39T5599 forthwith, by suspending the operation of the C etention vide Notice No.1 1 564/G/2008, (lated .03.2025 ofthe 1't Respondent, and to pirss such other order or orders, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and p'oper in tlre interests of justice, as ,)therwis (,, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and ha'dship. Counsel for the Pelitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Rr::;pondent No.1: AGP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Rr>spondent No.3: SPECIAL GP FOR STATE TAX The Court made tho following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.11249 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel lor the petitioner, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader lor Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondent No. I and leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of rcspondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.l in detaining the Granite Slabs along with vehicle bearing No.AP 39T 5599 and keeping the same in the safe custody of respondent No.2 vide Notice No.1 156NG12008, dated 28.03.2025 as illegal and lor a consequential direction to respondent Nos.l and 2 to release the goods and vehicle.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 39T 5599. While he was transporting the polished granite slabs/goods through the said lorry from the Seller N4/s. Bhuvanagiri Enterprises, Markapur, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh State, to the Buyer Mr. Mahesh at Pune, Maharashtra State, the respondent authorities detained the same for want of proof of l 2 KI-,.I u l' Ni, 11249 of2025 payment ol' rc]'alty on mineral used for the polished griLnile under transportation r rd kept the lorry in respondent No.2 ctrstotll . It is also contende(l b1,Lre petitioner that despite showing the copres of Tax Invoice No 70 Jatccl 20.03.2025 having GSTIN 37DVI-PB9072EIZE for 495() scluar: fe'et olgranitc slabs worth Rs.2,07,9004 an I(}ST Tax of Rs.3'l,.122,1- ri 1\Yo totaling to Rs.2,45,322l- isrued by the Seller, e-Way Bill Nc l7207I780898, datcd 20.03.2025, ',,chiclc l.lC, permit and InsLrrance (locLlments, the respondent authoritie-s did rrot release the veh'cle. Tt is also contended that for finishcd eoods. rherc is no need ol procluci r!. document shou,ing payment ol royallr, a td that the subject goocls rurder lransportation are finished goods and ale covered by tax invoicc rrncl c-rvay bill cvidcncing purchas,: of goods fr.om a registercd Sellt r in thc State of Andhra Pradesh. 'l'hcrclbrt,, issuance of noticc tlaterl - 8.03.2025 by respondent No. I requiring the pctitioner to h-rrnis.h solrr( (' ()l procurement of goods or else tc' pay arr rmount of Rs.1,76,400/- to,valds penalty is illegal.

4. Whcr,:as, learned Govemment Pleader tirr I lorre submits that the petitiort,r by mentioning the goods under transport its'granite slabs' in the tax invoice, is transporting semi-finishcd /u nfinished/ uncut slabs, i,irlr, letter dated 23.03.2025, respondr,nt No 2 informed t- 3 KL,J W.P- No.l 1249 ot2025 the same to respondent No.1 to veriff the documents produced by the petitioner.

5. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Mines and Geology, would submit that on receipt of information from respondent No.2, respondent No.l verified the documents fumished by the petitioner, such as Tax Invoice, E-way bill' vehicle R'C' and permit and Insurance Papers. But, he has not fumished any information regarding source of procurement of the subject goods, such as payment of royalty and, therefore, issued notice dated 28.03.2025 to the petitioner requiring him to produce source of procurement of the sub.ject goods, or else to pay an amount of Rs.1 ,76,400/- towards penalty. Since the subject goods are not finished one, the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount.

6. The Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 spccifies the procedures for the extraction and transportation of minor minerals, including granite. While raw minerals require royalty payment documentation during transportation, finished products like granite slabs may not require such documentation' In this case, the presence of a valid e-way bill and tax invoice would prima facie indicate lawful transportation of goods. The absence of a royalty i l I 4 KT-,J $ P No.ll219 012025 payment docurr ent for finished products should no1 be a ryound for seizure unless r.hcre is evidence of illegal extraction or nonl'rayment of dues. Therefore, the seizure of the subject ,vr:hicle tlansporting finished granit,: slabs without a royalty payment document appears to be unwan'antecl 7 In si rilar circumstances, this Court piLssed orrlers dated

10.02.2025, 0','.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 in W.P. Nos.361l:i of 2025, 3483 of 2025 ar d 3205 of 2025, respectively, directing thc respondent authorities to rclcase thc vehicle, and no appeals 1as bccrr preferred challengiing th: said orders. Thus, the said orders har,e attained fina1ity.

8. l-earncd Assistant Govemment Pleadcr for l{ome has produced lette.' dated 23.03.2025 of respondent No.2 addressed to respondent No. 1 requesting to veriff to take action with re1;ard to the subject'vehicle on the ground that it is transporting granite load from Andhra Prades r State. Respondent No.1 has addressed a l,,:tter dated

28.03.2(125 to the petitioner herein requesting hirn r.o submit explanalion r.r,ith regard to source of procurement of glanites/slabs transporting tht:rn in the subject vehicle to the extent of .19150 square feet without ro,,alty paid way bills. He has also placed reliance on the \ ) 't (4tfry7 ffi{- *i tal" ..r/ It 5 KL,J W.P. No I 1249 of2025 order dated 24.02.2016 in W.P. No.2682 of 2016. Both the said letters are placed on record.

9. Leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Mines and Geology placing reliance on the decisions in L. Venkateswara Rao v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.r and M/s. Novel Granites Ltd. v. Government of A.P.2, would submit that the petitioner has to fumish the source of procurement of the aforesaid granite.

10. On consideration of the said aspects including the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court disposed of the aforesaid three writ petitions directing the respondent authorities to verifu the description of the goods as mentioned in the Tax Invoice with the goods under transport and take action in accordance with law.

11. As discussed above, respondent No.1 did not prefer any appeal challenging the said orders in the aforesaid three writ petitions and, therefore, the said orders attained finality. As held by this Court in the aforesaid orders, it is for the respondents to veriff the description of the goods as mentioned in the Tax Invoice with the goods under transport and take action in accordance with law. This Courl agrees with the view taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Cout '. Igq: (.tt ALT tgY '. 2oo9 AtR (APftoT i I I I 6 KL,] \\' P r,,lo 11249 of2025 in the afbresaid .hree writ petitions. Moreover, respondent I'{o. I failed to make out any case to defer with the said vierv. Theiefore, the petitiont:r herei-r is also standing on the very same It,oting. To maintain parity, he is also entitled for the same relief.

111., In view of the aforesaid discussion and having re1;ard to the fact that the sLrtiject goods are supported by tax invoice arrd waybill generated on rtre GST portal, this Court is of rhe viev,, that the respondr:nt arrthtrities are to be directed to verif! thc dest:ription of the goods as .r rentioned in the tax invoice with the go,rds under transport, and if it is found that the subject goods e.re finistred goods, cut/granite slabs as mentioned in the description of the tax irrvoice, the respondent auth,rrities shall release the vehicle as ',^,,ell as the goods However, duri rg such inspection, if the authorities tincl that the subject goods arr semi-finished/unfinished-/uncut slabs requiring to be worked upon, the respondent authorities are at liberly to ta<e further action ir accorrlitnce with the provisions of the Act and Rulos framed thereunder. TtLr: respondent authorities shall complete the aforesaid exercise within cne (01) week from today. . , 7 KL,J W P No I1249 of2025

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstances ofthe case, there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY //rRUE copy// AsslsrANT fGlsrRAR t sEcld(f.oFFtcER I ro, rne State ot lelangana, Hyderabad.

1. The Assistant Director.of Mines and Geology, Nalgonda, State of Telangana. 2. The Station House Officer, Vijayapuri Town"ijolice"Station. 3 J!9 Rgglpgl Secretary, Revenle (CT) Department, Tet-ngana Secretariat, 4. One CC to Sri Sha-ik Jeetani Basha, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Mines And Geoiogy, Hiqh Cburt foi the State of - Telan-gana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 6. Two CC to The GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, al 7. Two CC to The GP for State Tax, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabadIOUT] 8. Two CD Copies t- *4s\- '-v Hyderabad[OUT] TJ :l HIGH COUR.T CC TODAY DATED:1 310512025 I o1' $, ?.\.,1 I .,, :, , \s \\ ,a ORDER WP.No.11249 of 2025 .- Lr DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ (?l v i I I