Non-registration under the Assam Wood-Based Industries Rules cannot justify seizure, confiscation, or sealing.

The petitioners, Afsana Furniture and its sole proprietor, challenged the sealing of their shop and factory and the seizure of furniture from their business premises by the authorities.

The action was taken on the ground that the petitioners had not complied with the registration requirements under the Assam Wood-Based Industries (Promotion and Development) Rules, 2022 (“Rules of 2022”).

The Gauhati High Court noted that an earlier batch of cases, including Kahinoor Furniture House v. State of Assam, 2026:GAU-AS:12282, had held that similar furniture businesses fall within the definition of “Secondary Wood-Based Industrial Unit” and must be registered, but that non-compliance with the Rules of 2022 did not constitute a “forest offence” authorising seizure or confiscation under the Assam Forest Regulations, 1891 (“the Regulation”).

The petitioners claimed to be similarly situated and sought de-sealing of the premises, return of the seized furniture, and consequential relief.

The Court applied the Rules of 2022, under which a “Secondary Wood-Based Industrial Unit” must obtain registration to establish, operate, or renew its operations.

Section 3(5) of the Assam Forest Regulations, 1891 defines a “forest offence” as an offence punishable under the Regulation or any rule made under it.

Sections 49(1) and 49(4) authorise seizure and confiscation only where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed and the competent authority is satisfied that such an offence has occurred.

Section 51 permits confiscation of forest produce, tools, and other articles upon conviction for a forest offence.

The Court held, following Kahinoor Furniture House v. State of Assam, 2026:GAU-AS:12282, that the Rules of 2022 do not prescribe a punishment for their breach; consequently, non-compliance with those Rules is not a “forest offence” under Section 3(5), and Sections 49 and 51 cannot be invoked for seizure or confiscation.

The Court further applied the principle that sealing a business premises requires specific statutory authority; absent such authority, sealing is illegal and without jurisdiction.

The Court treated the petitioners as similarly situated to the parties in Kahinoor Furniture House.

Although the petitioners’ business was a secondary wood-based industrial unit and therefore required registration under the Rules of 2022, the absence of registration did not itself create a punishable forest offence.

Since the Rules of 2022 did not prescribe a punishment and the Regulation did not otherwise attach a specific punishment to their breach, the statutory conditions for seizure and confiscation under Sections 49 and 51 were not satisfied.

Accordingly, the Forest Department lacked jurisdiction to seize the furniture or commence confiscation proceedings.

The Court also found no specific statutory power authorising the respondents to seal the business premises merely for non-registration; the sealing was therefore unauthorised.

The petitioners were nevertheless required to obtain registration, and their registration applications had to be processed under Rule 8(A).

However, the sealing of the business premises was declared illegal and unauthorised, and the respondents were directed to forthwith de-seal the premises.

The seizure of the furniture was likewise declared illegal and unauthorised, and the Forest Department was directed to return the seized furniture.

Any confiscation proceedings initiated in the meantime were declared non est.

The respondents were directed to process the petitioners’ registration applications in accordance with Rule 8(A) within the prescribed timelines.

The petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.