Rajesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3431 MP

                                                        1                              WP-12298-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-12298-2021
                                  (RAJESH SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      1
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 19-07-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.
                            Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
                            Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for
                      respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite order passed by

this Court on 2nd of February, 2021, respondent No.3/ District Excise Officer, Burhanpur has not decided the representation of the petitioner within three months so to give the benefit of Clause 49 and 54 of Excise Policy in compliance of the judgment of this Court passed in W. P. No.7373/2020 (Maa Vaishnav Enterprises and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another), including W. P. No.7473/2020 (Sangam Enterprises Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), decided vide order dated 22.7.2020 in para 128 of the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Writ Petition No.11204/2021,

(Alcoactive Retail Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others), in which interim order has been passed on 29.6.2021. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.7,16,95,000/- of the petitioner is already lying deposited with the respondents as against the demand of Rs.16,50,09,325/-.

Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner in the relied case had sought to argue that the benefit of Clause 49 and 54 of Excise Policy was not yet extended to them and whereas situation in the present case is different. It would be evident from Column 9 of the demand notice Annexure P-3 dated 8.12.2020, that a rebate of sum of Rs.13,38,27,315/-, in view of Clause 49 of the said Policy has already extended to the petitioner for keeping the shops closed during the

Signature Not lock down period. The case of the petitioner would in fact be identical to the SAN Verified

Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.07.20 10:45:24 IST 2 WP-12298-2021 W.P. No.8973/2021 (M/s.Mandla Syndicate Through Partner Mrinal Pathak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and W. P. No.9210/2021 (Nakul Ram Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), in which this Court has been pleased to extend the interim protection to the extent of 50% amount subject to petitioner depositing remaining 50%amount within four weeks.

Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the

State further submitted that the order passed by this Court on 29th of June, 2021 relied by the petitioner was passed on the first date of hearing when the counter affidavit to the writ petition had not yet been filed and all the facts could not be properly explained. The State has now already filed counter affidavit and they shall also file an application for modification of that order.

Having heard the rival submissions, it is directed that in the meanwhile, there shall be stay of recovery of 50% of the demand subject to the petitioner's depositing remaining 50% of the amount within a period of four weeks from today. It shall be obligatory for the petitioner to keep the Bank Guarantee alive pending disposal of the present writ petition.

                            (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                         (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                             CHIEF JUSTICE                                        JUDGE


                      kkc




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
KRISHAN KUMAR
CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.07.20
10:45:24 IST