Odisha HC Orders Release Of Car Seized With 51 Litres Of Alleged Liquor After Excise Commissioner Failed To Assess Owner’s Defence Or Examine Seizure Witnesses

On 11 April 2025, excise officials intercepted the petitioner, the registered owner and driver of a Maruti Suzuki Celerio, and allegedly recovered 68 PET bottles containing approximately 51 litres of non-duty-paid IMFL from the vehicle’s rear dicky.

The petitioner said the bags belonged to co-passenger Kartika Gope, who had represented that they contained marriage articles, and denied knowing their contents.

The Authorised Officer ordered confiscation under Section 71 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, on 16 July 2025. After the Commissioner initially dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, the High Court remitted it for fresh consideration; the Commissioner again dismissed the appeal on 13 August 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending, among other things, that the Commissioner had not independently considered his defence or adequately complied with the remand directions.

Section 71(1) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, permits seizure on reason to believe that an offence has been committed, while Section 71(3) separately requires the Collector or authorised officer to be satisfied that an offence has been committed in respect of the property before ordering confiscation; seizure alone does not establish that statutory precondition.

Under Section 71(4), confiscation requires notice of the grounds, an opportunity to make a written representation, and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Section 71(5) places on the owner the burden of proving that the vehicle was used without the relevant person’s knowledge or connivance and that reasonable and necessary precautions were taken.

Section 71(13) gives the authority specified civil-court powers, including the power to summon and examine witnesses; examination is not mandatory in every case, but the authority must consider whether further evidence is needed where the circumstances and the owner’s defence warrant it.

Confiscation deprives a person of property and must be authorised by law, consistently with Article 300-A of the Constitution; a quasi-judicial authority must give reasons connecting the evidence to its conclusion.

The Commissioner relied substantially on the seizure records, the recovery of the bottles, and the fact that the petitioner was driving, but the High Court could not discern an adequate independent assessment of those materials or of the petitioner’s specific account that the bags belonged to his co-passenger.

The petitioner’s signature on the seizure list did not, by itself, establish knowledge or connivance, and the chemical examination report could establish the substance’s nature but not the petitioner’s knowledge of it; moreover, the petitioner should have had a reasonable opportunity to examine and controvert that report before reliance was placed on it.

Given the disputed circumstances of recovery, the authority had to consider whether examining relevant witnesses was necessary.

Its general assertion that it had assessed the official records did not disclose the reasoning supporting its conclusion, and the second appeal decision did not cure the deficiencies identified in the earlier remand.

The Court held that the failure to undertake the required inquiry and assessment vitiated the confiscation decision.

It set aside both the Commissioner’s order of 13 August 2026 and the Authorised Officer’s confiscation order of 16 July 2025, quashed the confiscation proceedings concerning the vehicle, and directed the competent authority to take the necessary steps to release it to the petitioner.