The Gauhati High Court has held that furniture businesses falling within the category of Secondary Wood-Based Industrial Units under the Assam Wood-Based Industries Rules, 2022 are required to register, but breach of the Rules cannot by itself constitute a “forest offence” where no punishment is prescribed.

Justice Devashis Baruah held, “The above analysis would make it apparent that for the breach of the stipulations contained in the Rules of 2022, there is no punishment. Under such circumstances, as there is no punishment, any breach of the Rules of 2022 would not come within the ambit of 'forest offence'.”

The batch of writ petitions arose after Forest Department officials sealed the petitioners' furniture businesses and seized furniture. The petitioners, who manufactured and sold wooden furniture, had GST registrations and trade licences from the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board.

The respondents alleged that the petitioners were operating without mandatory registration and had violated Rules 8, 15, 16 and 17 of the 2022 Rules and Sections 34, 35, 40, 41, 49, 51 and 63 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891.

The Court first held that the businesses fell within the category of Secondary Wood-Based Industrial Units, making registration mandatory.

“The above therefore decides the first and second points for determination thereby opining that the Petitioners business premises would come within the ambit of commercial shop and to operate the same, the Petitioners have to get themselves registered under the provisions of the Rules of 2022 as a Secondary Wood-Based Industrial Unit.”

The Court then examined Sections 40(2) and 41(1). While the 2022 Rules were framed under Section 40(2), Section 41 permits punishment to be attached to a breach of such Rules. However, Rule 17 merely refers to punishment under the “relevant provisions” of the Regulation without prescribing a specific punishment.

The Court found that Sections 24, 25 and 33 prescribe punishment for the offences specifically covered by them, while Sections 58 and 59 do not prescribe punishment for breach of the Rules.

Section 3(5) defines “forest offence” as “an offence punishable under this Regulation or any rule thereunder.” Since Section 49(1) permits seizure where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed, and Section 49(4) makes confiscation dependent upon satisfaction that such an offence was committed, the Court held that seizure and confiscation could not be sustained.

The Court also referred to Section 51, which deals with confiscation following conviction for a forest offence. It said, “The seizure of the furnitures of the Petitioners by the Respondent Forest Officials are declared illegal and unauthorized. The consequential actions for initiation of the confiscation proceedings are also declared illegal and void.”

The Court further held, “the power exercised to seal the Petitioners' business premises is illegal and unauthorized. Moreover, without any forest offence being committed, the question of taking action for sealing the Petitioners' business premises is not only unauthorized but also without jurisdiction.”

The Court accordingly directed the authorities to de-seal the premises, return the seized furniture and quash the confiscation proceedings, while directing that the petitioners' registration applications be processed under Rule 8(A).

The writ petitions were allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Kahinoor Furniture House v. The State of Assam and 9 Ors.

LL Citation: LiveLaw 2026 (Gau) 169

Case No.: WP(C)/4126/2026 and connected writ petitions

Click here to read the judgement