Manjulaben Mukesh Tandel W/O ... vs Commissioner Of Excise Dept. Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9613 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:26905-DB

                                                                                  wp 5060 of 2022.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO.5060 OF 2022

            Manjuben Mukesh Tandel
            Proprietor, Widow of Mukesh Tandel,
            H.No.9/304, Master Sheri,
            Behind Soverign Hotel,
            Nani Daman, Daman                                       ...      PETITIONER

                   versus

            1.     Commissioner of Excise,
                   Department of Excise, Daman.
            2.     Dy. Commissioner of Excise cum
                   Dy. Collector, Daman and Diu
            3.     The Administrator,
                   Union Territory of Daman and Diu
            4.     The Advisor to Administrator
                   Union Territory of Daman and Diu
            5.     Union of India through
                   Union Territory of Daman & Diu                   ...      RESPONDENTS


            Mr. Bhavesh Parmar with Ms. Reshma Nair i/by Devmani Shukla, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar, for Respondents.

                                  CORAM                      :      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                  RESERVED ON                :      15 JUNE 2023
                                  PRONOUNCED ON              :      13 SEPTEMBER 2023

            JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned

Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

            2               This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the


            SSP                                                         1/20
                                                                        wp 5060 of 2022.doc

legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 1 February 2022 passed by the

Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra, Nagar Haveli and Diu and

Daman, whereby the Advisor affirmed the order dated 19 May 2020 in Appeal No.6 of

2022 passed by the Collector - Cum - Commissioner of Excise, Daman cancelling the

excise licences Nos.WS/IMFL/35 and WS/CL/Village/36 in the trade name of

Infinity Traders issued in favour of the Petitioner.

3. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :

3.1 The Petitioner was dealing in the business of sales of liquor under the

name and style of Infinity Traders. The Petitioner was granted the above licences. On

2 and 3 May 2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, conducted a surprise check at

the premises of the Petitioner. It was alleged that there was huge difference in the

stock found at the premises and the stock as per IERMS (online data).

3.2 A notice was issued to the Petitioner on 4 May 2020 to explain and

justify the difference in stock, within a period of three days. The Petitioner was

directed to close the outlet till further orders.

3.3 The Petitioner gave reply on 7 May 2020. It was contended that the

discrepancy in the stock allegedly noted in the inspection could be on account of

incomplete maintaining of the physical stocks and books in view of the exigency of the

situation which arose on account of Covid-19 Pandemic.

3.4           The Collector - cum - Commissioner of Excise, Daman, after


SSP                                                         2/20
                                                                     wp 5060 of 2022.doc

considering the explanation to the show cause notice and the panchanama drawn and

statements recorded at the time of inspection, passed an order on 19 May 2020

cancelling the above licences with immediate effect. The Collector was of the view

that the Petitioner had appointed a Manager for the said outlet without intimation to

or knowledge of the Excise Department in violation of the provisions of Rule 104(1) of

the Goa, Daman and Diu Excise Duty Rules, 1964 (GDDEDR Rules, 1964). The

Petitioner had not maintained the sign board outside the outlet in breach of Rule 103

GDDED Rules, 1964. CCTV cameras were not available and that only 10 cases of

different brands of liquor / beer were found physically lying in the godown, whereas

IERMS stock details showed the stock of 15498 cases. Hence, there was breach of

Rules and terms and conditions subject to which licences had been granted.

3.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal

before the Administrator. By an order dated 3 November 2020, the Administrator was

persuaded to dismiss the Appeal.

3.6 In Writ Petition No.5697 of 2021, a Division Bench of this Court by an

order dated 21 September 2021 set aside the order passed by the Administrator on the

ground that it was bereft of reasons and, thus, remitted the matter. As the Division

Bench was informed that the appeal would lie before the Advisor to the Administrator,

the Appeal was remanded to the Advisor for afresh decision after recording reasons.

3.7          Post remand, the Advisor to the Administrator, after providing an


SSP                                                      3/20
                                                                      wp 5060 of 2022.doc

opportunity of hearing to the parties, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner

opining, inter alia, that the Appellant had violated various provisions of Rules, 1964

and there was no merit in the appeal.

3.8 Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has again approached this Court.

3.9 An affidavit in Reply is filed on behalf of the Respondents in support of

the impugned order.

4. I have heard Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

and Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents at some length.

The learned Counsel took the Court through the pleadings and material including the

orders passed by the authorities below.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order of

cancellation of the licences dated 19 May 2020 has been passed in flagrant violation of

the principle of natural justice and without providing an efficacious opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioner. Amplifying the challenge, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner would urge that, firstly, the show cause notice dated 4 May 2020 was

completely omnibus and did not indicate the alleged lapses on the basis of which the

licences came to be eventually cancelled by the Commissioner of Excise. The show

cause notice did not indicate the action which the Commissioner, Excise, proposed to

take in the event of an unsatisfactory or no explanation. The consequences of non-

explanation were not specifically spelled out, submitted Mr. Parmar. Secondly, the

SSP 4/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

Petitioner was given only three days time to file a reply/explanation to the show cause

notice which in the backdrop of the exigency of the situation which arose on account

of Covid - 19, cannot be said to be a reasonable notice. Thirdly, even otherwise, the

Respondents did not indicate with necessary clarity as to the quantum of stock which

was allegedly found deficient.

6. Laying emphasis on the said ground, it was urged that apart from bald

words that there was 'huge difference' in the stock, the show cause notice dated 4 May

2020, did not divulge the details of the alleged difference in the stock and information

and/or documents to support the said objection, was/were never furnished to the

Petitioner. This also, according to Mr. Parmar, is in breach of fundamental principles

of natural justice. Lastly, it was urged that the impugned order makes a reference to

the alleged breach of Rules 103 and 104 of Rules, 1964, of which the Petitioner was

never put to notice.

7. Likewise, the endeavour of the Respondents to support the impugned

order by resorting to information and documents which were obtained subsequently,

cannot be countenanced as it is impermissible to support the order passed by the

quasi-judicial authority by banking upon further material and evidence. Legality,

propriety and correctness of such an order is required to be decided on the basis of the

material which was then in existence and considered by the said authority.

8. To lend support to the submission that the show cause notice must have

SSP 5/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

sufficient clarity, not only as to the alleged breach/violation, but also with regard to the

remedial action proposed to be taken, especially when the consequences of

cancellation of the licences affect the livelihood of a person, Mr. Parmar placed a

strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security

Services V/s. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.1

9. To bolster up the submission that the reasons in support of the quasi-

judicial orders cannot be supplied by subsequent facts, Mr. Parmar placed reliance on

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. V/s.

The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors.2

10. In contrast to this, Mr. Venegaonkar, learned Counsel for the

Respondents submitted that there is neither any jurisdictional error nor procedural

defect which would warrant interference in the impugned order in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. It was submitted that the Petitioner cannot make a grievance of absence

of an efficacious opportunity of hearing as the Petitioner was heard both by the

Commissioner, Excise and the Advisor to the Administrator. The Reply to the show

cause notice, according to Mr. Venegaonkar, clearly shows that no explanation worthy

of consideration was offered by the Petitioner.

11. Mr Venegaonkar would further submit that the ground that the show

cause notice did not contain the necessary particulars is a subterfuge. The

1 (2014) 9 SCC 105 2 (1978) 1 SCC 405

SSP 6/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

Respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner had drawn proper panchanama, recorded

statements of the persons present at the outlet and, therefore, the Petitioner was fully

aware of the alleged breach of the rules and the terms and conditions of the licences.

In such circumstances, according to Mr. Venegaonkar, the Petitioner cannot be

permitted to urge that she was unaware of the precise breach/violations.

12. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions. Section

16 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Excise Duty Act, 1964 which empowers the

Commissioner to cancel the excise licence reads as under :

16. Power to cancel licences - (1) A licence or permit granted under this Act may be cancelled by the Commissioner for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, after giving an opportunity to the person concerned for making any representation and after considering such representation.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of sub- section (1), the Commissioner may cancel or suspend any licence or permit granted under this Act -

(a) if any fee or duty payable by the holder thereof be not duly paid; or

(b) if there is any breach by the holder of such licence or permit, or by his servants, or by any one acting with his express or implied consent on his behalf, of any of the terms or conditions of such licence or permit or of the terms of any agreement executed under Section 17 ; or

(c) If the holder thereof is punished for any offence against this Act, or of any cognizable or non-bailable offence; or

(d) If the conditions of the licence or permit/ provide for such cancellation or suspension.

             (e)     The holder of a licence or permit shall not be entitled to any


SSP                                                               7/20
                                                                          wp 5060 of 2022.doc

compensation for the cancellation or suspension thereof under this section, nor to a refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof."

13. On a plain reading, the Commissioner is empowered to cancel the

licence which has been granted under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules, for

good and sufficient reasons. The Commissioner is, however, enjoined to record

reasons and give an opportunity to the person concerned for making a representation

against the cancellation and also consider such representation. Sub-section (2) of

Section 16 enumerates particular eventualities justifying the order of cancellation or

suspension of any licence or permit. Clause (b), inter alia, provides for cancellation

upon breach of any of the terms and conditions subject to which the licence or permit

has been granted or of the terms of any agreement executed under Section 17.

14. An inbuilt mechanism of opportunity of hearing before the cancellation

of licence is provided in sub-section (1) of Section 16. It envisages a notice to show

cause as to why the action of cancellation should not be taken. Properly construed, an

opportunity to make representation would mean a right to make representation against

the proposed action of cancellation after being made aware that the act complained of

is such that it may entail consequences of cancellation. The Commissioner is further

enjoined to consider the representation so made.

15. In the context of the aforesaid nature of the power vested in the

Commissioner, it may be appropriate to note that the Commissioner proceeded to pass

SSP 8/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

order of cancellation of licences on 19 May 2020 for four reasons, namely, the

appointment of a manager to manage the business without intimation to or knowledge

of the Excise Department in violation of Rule 104(1) of the Rules, 1964; non-display of

sign board outside the godown/ship in violation of Rule 103; non-installation / non-

availability of CCTV Camera in breach of the Circular dated 27 December 2019; and

the discrepancy in the physical stock and the stock shown in IERMS, to the tune of

15498 cases.

16. It would be contextually relevant to note the contents of the show cause

notice dated 4 May 2020. It reads as under :

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas, on 02/5/2020 and 03/5/2020 the Excise team has taken the physical stock of your Wholesale Shop of random brands and found huge difference in the stock as per IERMS details and actual physical stock available in the wholesale/wine shop when closure due to lock down due to Covid-19 pandemic was declared on 21 March 2020.

NOW, THEREFORE, you are called to explain and justify the difference in stock during the lockdown period. The reply should reach the undersign within 3 days of receipt of this Show Cause Notice, failing which action as deemed fit will be initiated against you.

The shop/wholesale will not be opened till further orders."

17. Reply of the Petitioner also deserves to be immediately noticed. It reads

as under :

"Due to the sudden declaration of the lock down w.e.f. 21 March 2020 on account of the Covid-19, we had to shut down out shop, business and office,

SSP 9/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

with immediate effect Our employees also were asked to stop coming to work with immediate effect from the date of the lockdown. As a result all our stock of goods, books etc., remained incomplete and could not be updated. The discrepancy noted during the course of the department's inspection could be the result of incomplete maintaining of the physical stock and also the books. Our earlier employees have still not returned to work and we are unable to seek any explanation from them on account of any variation in the physical goods available at our place of business with the registers.

We also submit that we have not indulged in any illegal activities and have not violated any provisions of the Excise Act and Rules. Under the above circumstances, we humbly submit that we shall immediately try to verify our physical stock and the registers and inform your office accordingly and therefore, most humbly request your good self to condone the mistake on our side.

We also undertake that in future we shall not commit any such mistake from our side."

18. In the context of the aforesaid show cause notice and the reply in

response thereto, it becomes abundantly clear that the Petitioner was not put to notice

as regards the alleged breach of Rules 103 and 104, namely appointment of a Manager

to manage the business without permission of the Excise Department and non-display

of the sign board. Nor the Petitioner was put to notice that the Petitioner had failed to

install CCTV cameras or the CCTV cameras were non-functional.

19. Nonetheless, all these three grounds, as is evident, weighed with the

Commissioner, Excise, as well as the Advisor to the Administrator. Breach of Rules

103 and 104 was specifically adverted to, by both the Commissioner and the Advisor in

SSP 10/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

the impugned order. Mr. Parmar was, thus, justified in canvassing a submission that

the order of cancellation of licences came to be passed on the ground of which the

petitioner was not put to notice.

20. As noted above, the provisions contained in Section 16 enjoin the

Commissioner to provide an opportunity to make representation and also consider the

said representation before taking action envisaged therein. Failure to state in the

notice dated 4 May 2020 the alleged breaches of Rules 103 and 104 and the breach of

circular to install /keep functional CCTV cameras, therefore, in effect deprived the

Petitioner from making an effective representation. On the first principles, the

Commissioner, Excise, could not have taken into account the aforesaid breaches, of

which the Petitioner was not given notice and an opportunity to make a

representation.

21. Issue of notice where there is a statutory mandate to provide an

opportunity to make a representation (against proposed action), in my view, stands on

a higher pedestal than a case where the principles of natural justice are considered to

be implicit. Where the statute mandates that the authority shall provide an

opportunity to make a representation, and also consider the representation so made,

the obligation to give notice before taking an action can only be construed as an

obligation to give such notice as to enable the noticee to make an effective

representation. A notice which is bereft of the essential particulars indicating the

SSP 11/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

consequences which may follow either expressly or by necessary implication, may not

satisfy the statutory requirements.

22. Reliance by Mr. Parmar on the decision of the Supreme Court in the

case of Gorkha Security Services (supra), wherein the Supreme Court adverted to

the adequacy of the contents of the show cause notice appears to be well-founded. In

the said case, the question arose in the context of the form and contents of the show

cause notice that was required to be served before deciding as to whether the noticee

was to be blacklisted or not. In paragraphs 21 and 22 the Supreme Court observed as

under :

"21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he get an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action.

22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the

SSP 12/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfill the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz:

i) The material/ grounds to be stated on which according to the Department necessitates an action;

ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit. we may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice but it can be clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement."

(emphasis supplied)

23. The Supreme Court has, thus, in terms, observed that in order to fulfill

the requirement of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice ought to satisfy

two requirements. First, the alleged breaches and defaults which constitute the

material / ground necessitating the action. Second, the nature of the action which is

proposed to be taken so that the noticee is in a position to point out that the proposed

action is not warranted, even if there is no satisfactory explanation regarding the

alleged breaches/defaults.

24. Mr. Venegaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents, however,

submitted that in the case at hand, the aforesaid violations were self-evident. No

prejudice had been caused to the Petitioner by not mentioning the alleged breaches as

these facts were evidenced by the Panchanama which was drawn on 2 nd and 3rd May

2020 and the statement of Mr. Hiren Patel, who was found at the outlet. The

SSP 13/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

Petitioner cannot, therefore, draw any mileage from the fact that the aforesaid

breaches did not find mention in the show cause notice.

25. I find it difficult to accede the aforesaid submissions. The show cause

notice is conspicuously silent about the aforesaid first three breaches. It is for this

reason that the Petitioner also gave explanation only regarding the alleged difference in

the physical stock and the stock noted in IERMS. As the mandate of the statutory

provision contained in Section 106 of the Act is clear and explicit and further fortifies

the principle of natural justice, the Commissioner, Excise could not have lawfully

taken into account the aforesaid three breaches in ordering the cancellation of the

licences, as the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing to meet the

proposed action on the strength of those alleged breaches /defects. Thus, the order

passed by the Commissioner, Excise, to the extent it draws support and sustenance

from the aforesaid three breaches does not appear to be sustainable.

26. I am mindful of the proposition that if the order passed by the authority

can be sustained on one ground, though it cannot be sustained on the other grounds

ascribed by the authority, the ultimate action can still be sutained.

27. Mr. Parmar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that even the

fourth count of the alleged difference in the physical stock and that shown in IERMS

also suffers from infirmities. It was submitted that the show cause notice merely

records that there was huge difference in the stock without quantifying the difference.

SSP                                                          14/20
                                                                                 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

Moreover, the show cause notice does not indicate as to what was the stock as per

IERMS and actual physical stock. Nor the show cause notice gives any inkling as to

action proposed to be taken. It is in justification of the order passed by the

Commissioner, Excise, the Respondents have sworn an Affidavit and placed

documents which, according to Mr. Parmar, is again impermissible. The order

passed by an administrative / quasi judicial authority must sustain or perish by the

weight of the reasons ascribed in the said order and those reasons cannot be

supplemented, submitted Mr. Parmar.

28. The legal position seems to be well recognized. The legality of an order

passed by an administrative / quasi judicial authority has to be decided on the basis of

the reasons evident from the said order. Those reasons cannot be subsequently

supplied by filing affidavit. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court enunciated in clear terms that when

statutory functionary makes the order based on certain ground, its validity must be

judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in

the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, the impugned order may get validated

by additional grounds brought out subsequently. Paragraph No.8 reads as under :

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get

SSP 15/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji3 Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

29. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation, reverting to the facts of the

case, it is pertinent to note that the show cause notice does not divulge as to what was

the stock as per IREMS details and the actual physical stock found during the course

of inspection. It simply refers to difference as 'huge'. Nor a copy of the panchanama

or the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of said inspection, seem

to have been annexed to the said show cause notice on 4 May 2020. Prima facie, the

show cause notice does not indicate the difference in stock with an element of

certainty.

30. Mr. Venegaonkar attempted to salvage the position by banking upon the

reply dated 7 May 2020 to the Show Cause Notice by the Petitioner. It was urged that

no explanation, as such, was offered for the difference in stock; a bald assertion was

made that such difference could be a result of incomplete maintenance of physical

stock and the books. In fact, the Petitioner prayed to condone the mistake with an

3 AIR 1952 SC 16

SSP 16/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

undertaking not to commit any such mistake. Therefore, according to Mr.

Venegaonkar, now it is not open for the Petitioner to urge that there was no difference

in the stock.

31. Mr. Venegaonkar would further urge with a degree of vehemence that

the huge difference of 15498 cases, which turns out to 46,74,000 bottles/cans, in itself,

is such that the explanation of an inadvertence or remissness in maintaining the

accounts is unworthy of countenance. The aforesaid submission would have carried

substance had the show cause notice indicated the quantity in IREMS and the physical

quantity with sufficient clarity.

32. Nonetheless, in this Petition, this Court is neither equipped nor

proposes to delve into the contentious issue of the quantum of the difference in the

stock. Nor the merit of the decision to cancel the licence is open for the consideration

in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is the decision making process which is within

the remit of the writ jurisdiction.

33. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in an identical

case of breach of the terms and conditions of the licence, which arose out of the

alleged huge difference in the stock in IERMS and the physical stock, the same

Commissioner, Excise, condoned the lapses by imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000/-.

Attention of the Court was invited to an order dated 17 June 2021 in the matter of Ravi

Wines (pages 53-G to 53-L of the Petition). Whereas, the licences of the Petitioner

SSP 17/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

were straightway cancelled without even putting the Petitioner to notice. Such

invidious discrimination surely justifies exercise of writ jurisdiction, submitted Mr.

Parmar.

34. From the perusal of the said order in the matter of Ravi Wines (page 53-

G), it becomes evident that the premises of the said licencee was also inspected on 2

May 2020 and allegedly there was huge difference in the actual physical stock and

IERMS. The Commissioner, Excise, who passed the impugned order was, however,

persuaded to pass an order to compound the offence and impose a penalty of

Rs.50,000/-.

35. The upshot of aforesaid consideration is that three counts of breaches

referred to above, could not have been made a ground for cancellation of licences as

the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing to either explain those alleged

breaches or putforth the case for not initiating action thereon. As regards the alleged

difference in the stock, the show cause notice did not indicate the action which the

Commissioner proposed to take. To add to this, the same Commissioner, Excise,

seems to have passed an order of compounding the offence and imposed a penalty

instead of cancelling the licence of another licencee and, in the case at hand,

proceeded to cancel the licences of the Petitioner.

36. There might be some additional factors or extenuating circumstances in

the case of the said licencee Ravi Wines, who prima facie appears to be similarly

SSP 18/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

circumstanced. However, since the show cause notice did not, in turn, indicate the

proposed action, the Petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to place all the

material and circumstances, which the Petitioner could have urged had she been put to

notice that the said discrepancy would entail the cancellationof the licences.

37. For the foregoing reasons, in my considered view, the matter is required

to be remitted back to the Commissioner, Excise, to pass appropriate order afresh,

even on the assumption that there was an admission as to the difference in the stock in

the reply to the show cause notice.

38. The Writ Petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following

order :

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition stands partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order as well as the order passed by the

Commissioner, Excise, Daman, stand quashed and set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the Collector cum Commissioner of

Excise, Daman to pass afresh order in Show Cause Notice No.3/1734 dated 4 May

2020, after providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause to the action of

cancellation of the licences.

(iv) It is further clarified that till such afresh order is passed, the

licence Nos.WS/IMFL/35 and WS/CL/Village/36 of the Petitioner shall remain

SSP 19/20 wp 5060 of 2022.doc

suspended and the Petitioner shall not be entitled to carry on any business under the

said licences.

(v) The Commissioner, Excise, shall pass such order as expeditiously

as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date scheduled for

the appearance of the Petitioner.

(vi) The Petitioner shall appear before the Commissioner, Excise,

Daman, on 26 September 2023.

(vii) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

                                                                                        ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                           20/20



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/09/2023 14:24:45