Case Law Details
Prem Chopra {Excise} Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition challenged recovery notices and orders issued by the authorities for recovery of amounts allegedly payable by the petitioner under Section 36 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 read with Rule 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules, 2002. The petition had initially been dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the due amount of Rs. 6,43,563 on 23.12.2017, which was acknowledged by the authorities in their notice dated 10.01.2018. Subsequently, the writ petition was restored on 19.01.2018, and the interim order dated 01.08.2003 staying recovery proceedings was also revived.
Read SC JUdgmentin this case: SC Upholds Excise Interest Demand as Interim Stay Does Not Extinguish Statutory Liability
The only issue before the Court was whether the petitioner was liable to pay penal interest amounting to Rs. 10,08,210.51, as demanded through the order dated 10.01.2018. The Court noted that, in view of its earlier decision in Vijay Vikram Nath v. State of U.P., license dues under Section 36 remained payable even upon surrender of the licence. However, the Court observed that the petitioner had continuously pursued legal remedies while enjoying protection under the interim order dated 01.08.2003. Since the petitioner had already deposited the admitted dues and the dismissal order dated 21.12.2015, which formed the basis for the penal interest demand, had itself been recalled with restoration of the interim protection, imposing additional liability by way of penal interest was held to be unjustified.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner, having already paid Rs. 6,43,563, could not be made liable for penal interest of Rs. 10,08,210.51. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations. The Court specifically directed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard.
This writ petition was filed in the year 2003 challenging the orders/notice passed by the opposite parties seeking recovery of the due amount payable by the petitioner under section 36 of the U.P. Excise Act 2010, read with Rule 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale of Country Liquor) Rules 2002 (For short ‘the Rules 2002’). This petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.12.2015. Thereafter the petitioner deposited the due amount on 23.12.2017, a fact which is admitted to the opposite parties in their notice dated 10.01.2018 annexed as Annexure A-5 to the application of the petitioner dated 16.01.2018. The writ petition was restored on 19.01.2018 and the interim order granted by this court on 01.08.2003 staying the recovery proceedings against the petitioner was also restored. Now the only point to the considered herein is as to whether the petitioner should be made to pay penal interest as is being charged vide order/letter dated 10.01.2018 referred hereinabove which is to the tune of Rs.10,08,210.51.
As far as merits of the case are concerned, this Court in a recent judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 6485 (MS) of 2007, Vijay Vikram Nath v. State of U.P. & ors., has already held that even on surrender of license dues payable under section 36 of the U.P. Excise Act 1910 the monthly license-fee with respect to M.G.Q.M. is also payable, however, this Court finds that this petitioner was under the protection of an interim order of this court dated 01.08.2003 and had been litigating the validity of the impugned orders before this court, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case as the due amount of Rs.6,43,563.00 has already been paid, as is admitted by the opposite parties, now fastening a further liability of Rs.Rs.10,08,210.51 upon the petitioner merely because the petition had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.12.2015, is not justified, especially as the order dated 21.12.2015, which was the basis for the notice/order dated 10.01.2018, has already been recalled and the interim order restored. The petitioner having already paid the due amount as mentioned hereinabove i.e. Rs. 6,43,563.00, shall not be made liable for penal interest. The writ petition is disposed off with these observations.
This order shall not be treated as a precedent.
Author Bio
