WPMS/1579/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3020 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.1579 of 2021

                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Through Hybrid Mode)

Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Brief facts, as involved consideration in the present writ petition, are that under the Uttarakhand Excise Policy as it was published in 2018, under Section 40 of the Act, it contained the provision for the purposes of settlement of the allotment of the liquor shops, which included within it an award of licence for country made liquor shops also, for which the petitioner was one of the applicants. As a consequence of the invitation of the tender for running a Foreign Liquor Shop, as well as Country Made Liquor Shop, the petitioner was allotted the shops at;

(i) Kalgikhal, District Pauri Garhwal,

(ii) Doiwala, District Dehradun

(iii) Lal Tappar, District Dehradun.

As per the terms of the allotment, the petitioner was supposed to deposit a minimum monthly guarantee amount during the period while operating the said liquor shop for the period from 01.05.2018 to 31.03.2019. Admittedly, he committed a default and as a consequence thereto, the respondents had initiated the recovery proceedings for the recovery of the excise dues payable by the petitioner, the excise dues, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, which happens to be of an recovery citation issued on 26.06.2020, wherein an amount of Rs.18,24,932/- has been sought to be recovered.

The petitioner contends that he would be entitled for a parity of judgment, which was rendered in WPMS No.1295 of 2019 Deepak Panwar vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.05.2019, where the amount was directed to be paid in instalments.

As far as the claim of parity, based on the said judgment dated 13.05.2019 is concerned, this Court is not agreeing with the said preposition for the reason being, that fixation of an instalment cannot be by way of a right as it is not a provision, which has been contemplated under the Excise Policy, which was issued by the State under Section 40 of the Excise Act, and also because of the fact when it relates to the remittance of the excise dues, no instalments as such could be fixed beyond a certain reasonable period and that too in the instant case, where the person who appeared and for whom, the instalment was fixed, it was not rather an adjudication of the dispute, but it was only an accommodation, which was granted by the Court, hence it will not create a precedent on the basis of which the petitioner can seek a relief of parity for fixing an instalment.

In this case, the petitioner has to blame himself, because the period of licence of the petitioner has already expired on 31.03.2019 and it is those dues which is now being sought to be recovered pertaining to the licence granted in his favour in relation to the three shops therein for 2018.

Hence, in that eventuality, the recovery citation for recovery of the said amount, issued by the respondents was as a consequence of the admitted default and non recourse to the legal remedies, which were available to the petitioner, which he ought to have availed within an appropriate time. Having not done so, the writ courts, which is an equitable remedy, is not available to the petitioner at a belated stage for excise dues of 2018-19. Hence, the writ petition as against the recovery citation, is dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 12.08.2021 Arti