Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, Anoop Kumar Dhand, JJ.
M/s. H. M. G. Bulk Carriers & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Learned Rajasthan Tax Board & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 5225/2019 Connected With Civil Writ Petition No. 5240/2019, Civil Writ Petition No. 5241/2019, Civil Writ Petition No. 5243/2019, Civil Writ Petition No. 5251/2019 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5268/2019
Decided On : 11-11-2021
VALIDITY - RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT - The court addressed the challenge to Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950, which initially required a payment of 75% of the demand amount for appeals. Following an amendment reducing this to 25%, the court allowed petitioners to file fresh appeals, emphasizing the importance of the amended provision in facilitating access to justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950, which mandated a payment of 75% of the demand amount for appeals. During the proceedings, this requirement was amended to 25%.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the earlier appeals were dismissed due to non-payment of the 75% penalty. The Rajasthan Tax Board's counsel indicated a willingness to allow fresh appeals under the amended provision, which the court accepted.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the payment requirement under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and its impact on the petitioners' ability to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the amendment to Section 9-A, reducing the payment requirement to 25%, was significant in allowing the petitioners to pursue their appeals, thus promoting fairness in the legal process.
Result: The writ petitions were dismissed as not pressed, but the petitioners were granted the liberty to file fresh appeals against the order dated 31.08.2016, with the requirement to pay 25% of the demand amount.
JUDGMENT
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners essentially challenging the validity of Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950 ('for short the Act of 1950')- The petitioners are aggrieved with the provision of payment of 75% of the amount of demand created by the order appeal against.
2. During the pendency of the writ petitions, Section 9-A of the Act of 1950 is amended and the requirement of payment of 75% of the amount of the demand created by the order appeal against is reduced to 25%.
3. After attempting to argue the matter on merits for quite some time, learned counsel appearing for Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer has submitted that on instructions, he does not want to press these writ petitions, however, seeks liberty for the petitioners to file fresh appeals against the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. It is also prayed that directions may be issued to the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer to consider and decide the appeals on merits within fixed time.
4. It is noticed that the earlier appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 31.08.2016 have been dismissed due to non payment of 75% of the penalty amount.
5. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned AG has no objection if the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer is directed to consider and decide the fresh appeals preferred on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 31.08.2016 on merits within fixed time.
6. In view of the above, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed, however, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh appeals against the order dated 31.08.2016 before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer after payment of 25% of the amount of demand created by the order dated 31.08.2016 as per the amended provision of Section 9-A of the Act of 1950.
7. In the event of filing appeals within a period of one month from today, the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer shall consider and decide the same, preferably within a period of four months thereafter.
The amendment to Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act 1950, reducing the payment requirement for appeals from 75% to 25%, facilitates access to justice and allows for the reconsideration of appeal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy available to assail the order was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
A communication from an Excise Inspector regarding outstanding dues is informational and does not constitute a demand notice under the Rajasthan Excise Rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
