PRAKASH NARAIN, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of proceedings which had taken place in Civil Writ No. 1403 of 1978. Briefly stated, the circumstances in which the petition comes up for hearing are these.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a bidder for and was awarded a wholesale dealer s licence, known as L-1 licence for dealing in Indian made foreign liquor for the year 1978-79. It is common case that at the relevant time no Indian made foreign liquor was manufactured within the Union Territory of Delhi. The same used to be imported from distilleries or manufacturers in other States of the country. Inasmuch as there was no manufacture in Delhi a question was raised by the petitioner that no excise duty is payable on the liquor imported into Delhi. This question was raised by filing C. W. No. 1403 of 1978 in this court on 16th December, 1978. Along with the said writ petition an application had been moved for stay of recovery of payment of excise duty. In fact. there were two applications moved and were numbered as C. Ms. 3040 and 3042 of 1978, In the miscellaneous application after notice the following order was passed by H. I. . Anand, J. on January 12, 1979 :

"pending further orders the levy collection and realisation of Excise and or countervailing duty impugned by the petitioner is stayed on the condition that the petitioner furnishes within two days bank guarantee to the extent of 50 per cent of the duty that may be realisable from time to time. On the bank guarantee being furnished, the authorities would issue the requisite permit in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. "it is common case that thereafter the petitioner imported liquor into the Union Territory by paying 50 per cent duty in cash and giving bank guarantee to the extent of 50 per cent of the remaining duty. In another similar petition, being C. W. No. 716 of 1978, M[s. Sat Pal and Co. . etc. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, a learned Single Judge of this court held that no excise duty was leviable on liquor imported into Delhi as the same was not manufactured here. This judgement was delivered on January II, 1979. The effect of the said judgement would have been that excise duty claimed by respondents on all such liquor licences could no longer be claimed and would naturally have resulted, in great loss of revenue. To neutralise the effect of the said judgement, the President was pleased to promulgate Ordinance No. I of 1979 on January 20, 1979 in which the erstwhile excise levy was acknowledged as countervailing duty not being payable but a special duly was imposed retrospectively which would cover such liquor licences as the petitioner had. Despite this Ordinance of January 20, 1979 the stay orders passed in C. W. No. 1403 of 1978 were made absolute till disposal of the writ petition on 29-1-79 and no objection was raised on behalf of the respondents with regard to making a provision for payment of interest or any such like amount in the event of the writ petition being dismissed. Ordinance No. 1 of 1979, we are told, was challenged by a petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution as being ultra vires the various provisions of the Constitution. We are informed that the Supreme Court dismissed that writ petition. The result obviously was that the special duty imposed by Ordinance No. 1 of 1979 became a validly imposed duty. In consequence, the petition filed by the petitioner more or less lost all force. Accordingly, C. W. No. 1403 of 1978 was permitted to be withdrawn by this court and was dismissed as such on November 13, 1979. With the dismissal of the said writ petition the special duty became payable in full for every consignment of liquor imported by the petitioner into Delhi. The respondents had already received 50 per cent of the duty for the consignments already imported in cash. For the. remaining they had bank guarantees to the extent of 50 per cent. Instead of enforcing or encashing the bank guarantee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document