Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Pesticides India Ltd vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/003741) on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023/RJJD/003741]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1352/1987
M/s Pesticides India Limited, Post Box No.20, Udaipur Proprietor-
Mewar Oil & General Mills, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Excise Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
3. District Excise officer, Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jhamak Nagda.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
03/02/2023
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning
the validity of the Rules 68 and 69-B of the Rajasthan Excise
Rules, 1956, to the extent they levy any impost on rectified spirit
or denatured spirit or denatured spirituous preparation or the
industrial alcohol and for quashing of the notifications (Annex.1
and 1-A) and seeking refund to the petitioner whatever amounts
have been realised or may be realised from the petitioner by way
of permit fee with interest at the bank commercial advancement
rate.
Counsel for the parties submit that the issue of the validity of
the Rules under question is no more res-integra as this Court in
[2023/RJJD/003741] (2 of 4) [CW-1352/1987]
Geeta Enterprises vs. State of Rajasthan : (1993) 1 RLW (Raj.)
308, has decided the issue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that in
the present petition, an interim order dated 20.05.1987 was
passed by the Court and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has
placed the Fixed Deposit receipt of the amount due with the
District Excise Officer, Udaipur as and when it became due and
that in terms of directions given by the Division Bench in the case
of Geeta Enterprises (supra), as the petitioner is not liable to pay
the excise duty or countervailing duty with effect from
25.10.1989, the Fixed Deposit Receipts/amount to the said extent
i.e. with effect from 25.10.1989, be ordered to be
returned/refunded back to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the
duty has been revised from 1997 and ever sine the petitioner has
been paying the same voluntarily. It is further indicated that the
petitioner has placed fixed deposits under the interim order with
the respondents.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties.
In the case of Geeta Enterprises (supra), the Division Bench
inter-alia ordered and directed as under:
"(42). In the result, this writ petition is allowed in
part. The imposition of excise duty or countervailing duty
on the denatured spirit or the denatured spirituous
preparation is declared to be illegal with effect from
25.10.1989, when the State Govt. itself has voluntarily
stopped its levy after the pronouncement of the Judgment
by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Synthetics &
Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (supra). In other words,
the respondents are restrained from enforcing the levy of
octroi duty or countervailing duty on the denatured spirit
or the denatured spirituous preparation with effect from
25.10.1989 any further but the petitioners will not be
[2023/RJJD/003741] (3 of 4) [CW-1352/1987]
liable for any refund of the octroi duty or the
countervailing duty which has been recovered or has
become recoverable prior to 25.10.1989. However, it is
declared that the State Govt. is free to levy permit fee on
the industrial alcohol including denatured spirit or the
denatured spirituous preparation as regards its import and
export in exercise of its regulatory functions, keeping in
view the provisions of Entry 33, of List HI of Schedule VII
of the Constitution.
(43). Consequently, it is declared that the provisions
of s.28 of the Act are ultra vires of the Constitution only to
the extent they authorise the State Govt. to levy excise
duty and countervailing duty on the industrial alcohol,
otherwise the section as such is not ultra vires of the
Constitution. The provisions of ss. 3 (4) (i), 41 and 42 of
the Act are intra vires of the Constitution and therefore,
they need not be declared to be invalid. The same position
exists as far as the provisions of r.69-B of the Rules are
concerned. However, in view of the discussion made
hereinabove, the Annexures-2 and 4 do not deserve to be
quashed.
(44). In the facts and circumstances of this case, the
parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ
petition."
From the above directions, it is clear that the petition was
allowed in part and the imposition of duty was declared illegal with
effect from 25.10.1989 and the respondents were restrained from
enforcing the levy of duty with effect from 25.10.1989, however, it
was directed that the petitioner therein would not be entitled to
refund of the duty, which has been recovered prior to 25.10.1989.
In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed in the light of and with the similar directions as given in
the case of Geeta Enterprises (supra) and consequently it is
ordered that the Fixed Deposit receipts placed by the petitioner
with the respondent Department pursuant to interim order dated
20.05.1987, to the extent the same pertain to the amount of duty
with effect from 25.10.1989, shall be returned to the petitioner
and the petitioner would be entitled to get the same encashed
from the Bank.
[2023/RJJD/003741] (4 of 4) [CW-1352/1987]
The amount of Fixed Deposit receipts placed by the
petitioner with the respondent Department pertaining to the duty
till 24.10.1989 shall be paid to the State, in terms of the
directions already issued.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
19-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
