Back
A demand notice cannot be issued without providing the person concerned an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote:
LIQUOR LICENSE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - DEMAND NOTICE - Petitioners aggrieved by demand notice issued without opportunity of hearing - Petitioners filed response to demand notice, but respondents denied receipt - Court directed petitioners to file response within 10 days and respondents to decide on response within 3 weeks - Demand notice not to be enforced till decision on response.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, holders of liquor licenses, challenged a demand notice issued by respondents without providing an opportunity of hearing. Petitioners claimed to have filed a response to the demand notice, which was denied by respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand notice was issued based on an audit objection without providing the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The court also noted that the petitioners had filed a response to the demand notice, which was denied by the respondents.
Issues: Whether the demand notice was issued without providing an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand notice could not be sustained as it was issued without providing the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The court directed the petitioners to file their response to the demand notice within 10 days and the respondents to decide on the response within 3 weeks.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions with directions to the petitioners to file their response to the demand notice within 10 days and the respondents to decide on the response within 3 weeks. The court also directed that the demand notice not be enforced till a decision was made on the response.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9145/2022
Lalita W/o Shri Kailash Narayan, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste
Mewara, Resident Of Cycle Market, Vijay Cold Drink, Jodhpur.
Licence Holder Of Country Made Liquor Composite Shop, Dabani-
2020--21, District - Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Excise
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
3.
District Excise Officer, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9199/2022
Mada Ram S/o Shri Basti Ram Mewara, Aged About 48 Years, By
Caste Mewara, License Holder Of Country Made Liquor
Composite Shop, Anadara 2020-21, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Excise
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur
(Rajasthan.).
3.
District Excise Officer, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9211/2022
Nitesh Kumar Mewara S/o Madan Lal Mewara, Aged About 32
Years, Jainwas, Reodar, District Sirohi. License Holder Of Country
Made Liquor Composite Shop, Sirodi-2020-21, District Sirohi
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Excise
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
3.
District Excise Officer, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9257/2022
Dakhu Devi W/o Shri Basti Ram Mewara, Aged About 69 Years,
By Caste Mewara, Resident Of Village Guda Kallan, District Pali.
License Holder Of Country Made Composite Shop, Dolpura 2020-
21, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Excise
(2 of 3)
[CW-9145/2022]
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
3.
District Excise Officer, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10093/2022
Manohar Singh S/o Shri Bhawani Singh, Aged About 25 Years, By
Caste Mewara, R/o 41, Madhura Chetana Colony, Kusugal Road,
Hubali (Karanatakaka). License Holder Of Country Made Liquor
Composite Shop, Dantrai-2020-21, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Excise
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
3.
District Excise Officer, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. S.S. Rathore.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Girish Sankhla.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
09/01/2023
The petitioners are aggrieved of the demand dated
15.06.2022 (Annex.8). Submissions have been made that before
raising the said demand, the petitioners were not afforded any
opportunity of hearing.
Further submissions have been made that the raising of the
demand is ex-facie illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioners have
already made the requisite payment and/or the demand raised is
contrary to the Excise Policy.
Submissions have also been made that on issuance of the
said demand notice dated 15.06.2022, the petitioners have filed
their response/objections vide Annex.9, however, the same has
not been dealt with.
(3 of 3)
[CW-9145/2022]
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made
submissions that the response (Annex.9) has not been filed by the
petitioners, however, it is not denied that before issuing the
demand dated 15.06.2022 (Annex.8), the petitioners were not
afforded any opportunity of hearing.
In the overall fact and circumstances, wherein, the demand
dated 15.06.2022 (Annex.8) has been issued based on audit
objection and prior to the same, the petitioners were not afforded
any opportunity of hearing, the
