Back
2004 Supreme(All) 2056
2005 (1) AWC 334
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
R. K. Agrawal and Krishna Murari, JJ.
C.M.W.P. No. 222 of 1999
Decided on November 10, 2004
Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co., Rampur
Versus
State of U. P. and others
Counsel for the Petitioner: Manish Goyal.
Counsel for the Respondents: S. P. Kesarwani, S.C.
The liability for payment of assessed fee and the applicability of interest under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Excise Revenue - Liability for Payment of Assessed Fee - U.P. Excise Act, Section 38A - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P. Excise Act, Section 38A - The court discussed the liability for payment of assessed fee and the applicability of interest under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act. It interpreted the provisions and cited relevant case laws to determine the liability for interest and upheld the demand for interest under Section 38A.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company Ltd., sought relief against a demand order for interest on the assessed fee. The company had been granted a license for establishing a distillery and was involved in a dispute regarding the payment of assessed fee for alleged sales to another firm. The court analyzed the liability for payment of assessed fee and the applicability of interest under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability for payment of assessed fee was with the petitioner and upheld the demand for interest under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability for payment of assessed fee and the applicability of interest under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act and cited relevant case laws to establish the liability for interest on the assessed fee.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the demand for interest under Section 38A of the U.P. Excise Act.
R. K. Agrawal, J.—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-M/s. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company, Rampur, seeks the following reliefs :
(i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the demand order dated 27th January, 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to recover any amount in pursuance of the notice dated 27th January, 1999 towards interest.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of sum of Rs. 73,380 deposited by the petitioner on 3rd April, 1996 under protest after conferring the similar benefit as has been conferred upon M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. in Writ Petition No. 699 of 1996.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the order of Excise Secretary dated 6.6.1996 as null and void.
(v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the security furnished by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order within one month.”
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :
M/s. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Company Ltd., now known as a unit of Redico Khetan Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Bareilly Road, Rampur. It has been granted licence in Form PD-2, i.e., for establishing a distillery for manufacture of potable as well as non-potable alcohol at Bareilly Road, Rampur. According to the petitioner during the excise year 1977-78 one M/s. Shyam Mohan Sita Ram, a partnership firm, hereinafter referred to as the firm was granted licence in Form FL-2, i.e., for whole sale vend of Indian made foreign liquor. The said firm was entitled to make supply of beer and Indian and foreign liquor to retail vendors holding licence in Form FL-5. The firm was liable to pay assessed fee at the rate of Rs. 5 per bottle of wine, spirit and 0.90 paisa per bottle of beer. According to the petitioner under Rule 462 of the U. P. Excise Rules the liability of payment of assessed fee was squarely on the FL-2 licensee which in the present case was with the firm. Regarding some dispute of payment of the assessed fee with the Government of U. P., the firm filed a civil suit in the Court of the District Judge, Rampur which was numbered as Original Suit No. 10 of 1981 in which it had prayed that a permanent injunction be granted restraining the respondents from realizing assessed fee from it. According to the petitioner they were not party in the suit. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 23rd May, 1984 and the State Government was restrained from recovering any amount towards assessed fee from the said firm. On the basis of the findings recorded in the suit, the Excise Commissioner, U. P., Allahabad, issued notice dated 11th/14th April, 1985 calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 73,380 being the amount of assessed fee which was payable on the alleged sale effected by the petitioner to the said firm. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice by means of Writ Petition No. 311 of 1985 before this Court. On 22nd September, 1985, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner wherein it was directed that the respondent shall not require the petitioner to deposit the amount of the assessed fee in question. Apart from the petitioner three other distilleries, namely, M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd., Saraiya Distillery and Daurala Distillery were also served similar notices by the Excise Department calling upon them to pay assessed fee in respect of the alleged sales made by them to the firm. According to the petitioner M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. filed a first appeal before this Court against the decree passed in Original Suit No. 10 of 198
