Pushpa Jagdish Jaiswal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 636 Bom

                                            1                        WP-8603.15


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                           
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 8603 OF 2015




                                                   
     1.       Smt. Pushpa Jagdish Jaiswal,




                                                  
              Age major, occup. Business,
              R/o Yawal, Tq. Yawal,
              Dist. Jalgaon




                                         
     2.       Kareena Gopal Awaratani
              Age major, occup. Business,
                             
              Partner of CL-III License No.71,
              R/o Yawal, Tq. Yawal,
                            
              Dist. Jalgaon                                 .. Petitioners

                               versus

     1.       The State of Maharashtra,
      


              Through: (Excise Department,
   



              Mantralaya, Mumbai)

     2.       The Collector, Jalgaon,
              Dist. Jalgaon





     3.       The Superintendent,
              State Excise Jalgaon,
              Dist. Jalgaon.





     4.       The Hon'ble Minister,
              State Excise,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32                       .. Respondents
                     -----
              Mr. Anil H. Kasliwal, Advocate for petitioners
              Mr. D. R. Kale, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondents




    ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:07:47 :::
                                               2                         WP-8603.15




                                                                              
                                    CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

15TH MARCH, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Leave to amend and add party.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties by

consent, finally.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners are before this court against

insistence by State excise authorities to pay up interest demanded

pursuant to an audit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as a matter

of fact, the original amount of licence being paid pursuant to audit

report itself is a hiked amount than that can be legitimately asked

from the petitioners. He further submits that interest over said

amount cannot be said to be due from the petitioners. He purports

to rely on various documents, inter alia, certificate issued by the

State excise authorities.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, submits

that the matter is sub-judice before the revisional authority at the

behest of the petitioners with regard to interest charged and in the

circumstances, a decision on merits is not warranted in writ

petition.

3 WP-8603.15

6. Having regard to that the matter is pending before revisional

authority for quite sometime, it would be appropriate to proceed

with and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. In the meanwhile, no coercive action be taken for recovery of

interest till decision in the revision pending before the authority

concerned.

8.

Rule made absolute in terms of paragraphs no. 6 and 7

above. Writ petition stands disposed of.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd