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.
