Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
State Of Jharkhand - Appellant
Versus
Member Board Of Revenue - Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 943, 944, 945, 948, 949, 950, 951, 955, 956, 957, 959 of 2007
Decided On : 31-01-2018
Excise Policy - Bihar Excise Act, 1915 - Section 39 - The court allowed the writ petitions on the grounds that the application for remission of the license fee filed by the respondent was not maintainable under Section 39 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. The court also found that the respondent had no case on the merits and rejected the plea that the license fee is nothing but excise duty.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions arose from a common order passed by the Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, granting remission of license fee on alleged non-supply of country liquor/spiced country liquor. The petitioners sought to quash the order on the grounds of jurisdiction, inconsistency, perversity, and misinterpretation of legal provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for remission of the license fee was not maintainable under Section 39 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. It also held that the respondent had no case on the merits and rejected the plea that the license fee is nothing but excise duty.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Member Board of Revenue, inconsistency in orders, misinterpretation of legal provisions, and the nature of the license fee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for remission of the license fee was not maintainable under Section 39 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. It also rejected the plea that the license fee is nothing but excise duty.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the court directed the respondent to pay the demanded amount within four weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to realize the same from the respondent in accordance with the law.
ORDER
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. V.K. Prasad, Standing Counsel (Land and Ceiling), appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases.
2. Heard Mr. D.V. Pathy, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 in all the cases.
3. All the aforesaid writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 1.11.2006 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi and therefore all these writ petitions have been tagged and are being heard together.
4. The writ petition and the corresponding case number of the revision petition disposed of by the aforesaid impugned order dated 1.11.2006 are as under:-
| S. No. | Writ petition number | Revision case number |
| 1 | W.P.(C). No. 943 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 25 of 2006 |
| 2 | W.P.(C). No. 944 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 29 of 2006 |
| 3 | W.P.(C). No. 945 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 21 of 2006 |
| 4 | W.P.(C). No. 948 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 23 of 2006 |
| 5 | W.P.(C). No. 949 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 30 of 2006 |
| 6 | W.P.(C). No. 950 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 31 of 2006 |
| 7 | W.P.(C). No. 951 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 28 of 2006 |
| 8 | W.P.(C). No. 955 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 22 of 2006 |
| 9 | W.P.(C). No. 956 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 24 of 2006 |
| 10 | W.P.(C). No. 957 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 26 of 2006 |
| 11 | W.P.(C). No. 959 of 2007 | REV. Case No. 27 of 2006 |
5. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 01.11.2006 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi to the extent it relates to respective revision cases. The impugned order is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ applications.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:-
(a) The Petitioner State had introduced new excise policy for settlement of retail excise shop for the financial year 2004-2005.
(b) Prior to 2004-2005 excise retail shops were used to be settled individually for one year, but from 2004-2005 excise retail shops of country liquor and country spiced liquor were settled in Group-1 for a block period of three years and in 2nd and 3rd year of settlement, 10% increase in license fee was proposed.
(c) Although the block period was for three years but the license was to be issued for only one year subject to renewal ever year.
(d) A sale notification in prescribed Form dated 01.06.2004 under the provision of Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (as adopted by the State of Jharkhand) was issued by the State for the period from 01.07.2004 to 31.03.2007. As per Clause-4 of the sale notification, the settlement for second and third year required increase in license fee by 10% in each year.
(e) The respondent no. 2 participated in the auction and was successful.
(f) There was no problem for the license for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005.
(g) The license was renewed for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006.
(h) On 31.03.2006 respondent no. 2 filed a petition before the Member Board of Revenue, under Section 39 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 praying for remission of license fee on account of alleged non-supply of country liquor for different periods ranging from a few months to the entire license period for the year 2005-2006 except for the days notified in advance as dry days.
(i) Similar applications for country liquor and spiced country liquor were clubbed together and numbered as Revision Case No. 20 to 31 of 2006 which were disposed of vide common order dated 01.11.2006 as contained in Annexure-2 to the
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
