Gauhati High Court
Kamalesh Singh vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 20 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010275452019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8342/2019
KAMALESH SINGH
S/O- LATE GANGASAGAR SINGH, R/O- MISSION CHARIALI, TEZPUR, DIST-
SONITPUR, PIN- 784001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
EXCISE DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6, ASSAM
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 6
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 78400
Linked Case : WP(C)/8340/2019
SANJAY SARKAR
S/O- SRI SUNIL CHANDRA SARKAR
R/O- L B ROAD
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
PIN- 784001
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/3
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
EXCISE DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 6
ASSAM
2:THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GHY- 6
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE
SONITPUR
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784001
------------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Hazarika, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Goswami, Government Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 20.09.2023
1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by Petitioners challenging the
imposition of establishment charges upon the Petitioners.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners as well as the
learned counsel for the Excise Department submits that the issue involved in
both the writ petitions stands covered by a judgment of this Court dated
09.05.2023 in the case of M/S Barak Warehouse Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State
of Assam and 2 Others passed in WP(C) No.4575/2021.
3. Taking into account the above, this Court therefore disposes of both the
writ petitions with the following observations and directions:-
Page No.# 3/3
(i) The petitioners herein are liable to pay the establishment charges in terms
with Clause 9 of the order dated 29/8/2016 till payment of the ad-valorem
excise duty as well as the VAT on the basis of the orders passed by the
authorities in terms with Clause 3 of the office order dated 29/8/2016 are not
paid or such amount so demanded are not set aside in accordance with law.
The Respondent Excise Department is given the liberty to take such action as
deemed fit for realising the establishment costs.
(ii) The Respondent Authorities and more particularly the Commissioner of
Excise is directed to take a definitive decision in respect to unfit/the dead stock
lying in the warehouses of the petitioners within a period of 2 months from the
date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Commissioner
of Excise and the decision so taken be informed to the petitioners thereupon.
(iii) The petitioners would be at liberty to place such materials before the
Commissioner of Excise to show as regards the amounts the petitioners have
paid as well as the observations and findings of the Sub Committees and if
during such verification, it is found that the petitioners have already paid the
amounts in terms with the demands so made under Clause 3 of the order dated
29/8/2016, then from such date the petitioners have already paid their dues,
the petitioners would be not liable for the payment of the establishment
charges.
(iv) On the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
