Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alcoactive Retail Traders Pvt. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WP-11204-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-11204-2021
(ALCOACTIVE RETAIL TRADERS PVT. LTD. Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate, Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior
Advocate with Shri Rahul Diwaker and Shri Kapil Wadhwa, learned counsel
appeared for the Petitioner.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of respondents/State.
Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel, argued that in the earlier
round of litigation, this Court passed an interim order on 04.06.2020 in the
writ petition filed by the petitioner W.P. No.7373/2020 directing that -
"the petitioners who are ready and willing to
continue (including the cases of renewal), shall file
an affidavit within three working days from today,
failing which the State shall be entitled to auction
the shops afresh on terms as laid down by them."
Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that not only
the petitioner did not furnish any affidavit in terms of the aforesaid order but
in fact, the petitioner did not even avail the license and therefore, its license
was cancelled on 09.06.2020. Aforementioned writ petition along with a
bunch of petitions was decided by the common judgment dated 22.07.202, in
para-126 to 128 of which it was held as under :-
"126. At this stage, it would be just to refer to the
alternative plea raised by the parties on the strength
of Clauses 48, 49 and 54 of the Excise Policy.
127. Clause 48 of the Policy does not provide any
benefit to the petitioners if decision to close the
liquor vends or re-auctioning the liquor vends is
taken on account of any liquor prohibition policy or
any loss is caused to the licensees on account of act
of God or natural calamity. However, Clause 49
provides that consequent upon any social, political
presentation or law and order situations, loss of
2 WP-11204-2021
sale of liquor can be compensated in equal
proportion of minimum bank guarantee after taking
into account all the situations if the licensee of a
particular area was unable to take the supply of
liquor equivalent to minimum bank guarantee duty
fixed for the licence year. Such decision to
compensate or grant rebate in duty payable shall be
taken by the State/Excise Commissioner on the
basis of reasonable and factual proposal sent by the
District Committee. Under Clause 54 of the policy,
there is no impediment for the petitioners to seek
refund of the amount so deposited towards process
fee/conditions for allotment of liquor shop in case
any unavoidable circumstance arises due to which
the auction process is required to be cancelled.
However, no compensation is payable.
128. In view of the stand of the State that if the
petitioners find that they are at a loss in operating
the allotted liquor shops, they can opt to invoke
clause 49 of the Excise Policy to seek
remission/waiver of Excise duty to the extent of
loss, file an application to the District Committee
provided thereunder who shall send a fact finding
report to the State Government whereupon decision
on waiver of Excise duty shall be taken, it shall be
open for the petitioners to approach the competent
authority of the respondents invoking Clauses 49
and 54 of the Excise Policy 202-21 and due to
changed scenario and the fact and circumstances,
the said Authority shall consider the claim of the
petitioners sympathetically and take decision in
accordance with law."
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the
petitioners challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing Special Leave to
Petition (SLP No.10758/2020) before the Supreme Court, however,
eventually it withdrew the same with liberty to make an application to the
respondents in terms of para-128 of the aforesaid judgment. The petitioners,
thereafter, submitted a detailed application before the respondents on
03.10.2020. However, the application of the petitioners has been mechanically
rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 25.02.2021 without
adverting to any of the arguments raised by the petitioner with reference to
3 WP-11204-2021
Clauses- 49 & 54 of the Excise Policy, 2021. It is submitted that the petitioner
had already deposited with the respondents a sum of Rs.19,87,30,000/- (Rs.
Nineteen Crores Eight Seven Lakhs and Thirty Thousand Only) at the time of
submission of bid and is in fact, entitled to refund of the same. Now,
suddenly the respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner vide notice
dated 27.01.2021 demanding a sum of Rs.27,07,62,221/-, even though the
petitioner did not run the shop for a single day.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General,
opposed the writ petition and submitted that the amount of recovery which
was intended to be made from the petitioners was in fact, Rs.96,65,08,090/-
which would be evident from the earlier demand notice dated 26.09.2020.
Considering however the representation of the petitioners, the amount for the
demand has been substantially reduced.
Having regard to the rival submissions and taking into consideration the
fact that already the amount of Rs.19,87,30,000/- of the petitioner is lying
deposited with the respondents, we are persuaded to stay the operation of the
impugned demand notice dated 27.01.2021 pending disposal of the writ
petition.
The respondents may file their reply to the writ petition within a period
of six weeks.
List the matter after six weeks.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Priya.P
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra
Date: 2021.06.30 15:57:11 IST
