WPMS/2498/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 4815 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                          BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2498 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Amit Goyal.                                     .....Petitioner
       (By Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others.              ...Respondents
       (By Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
       General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents)


                        JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner was granted license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for financial year 2020-21.

3. According to him, he could not lift the prescribed quantity of liquor during period of lockdown, therefore, not only his license was cancelled, but order for recovery of `4,73,14,626/- was also passed against him. Petitioner filed Appeal under Section 11 (1) of Excise Act, 1910.

4. Since there is a condition regarding pre- deposit of 25% of the disputed amount in proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Act, therefore, petitioner had applied for relaxing the said condition in terms of

second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Excise Act, 1910. Petitioner's application for relaxing the condition of pre-deposit has been rejected by the Excise Commissioner, vide order dated 10.09.2021. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to judgment dated 21.08.2021 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1663 of 2021. In the said judgment, Coordinate Bench provided that if petitioner in said writ petition deposits 12.5% of the disputed amount, then his Appeal shall be entertained and decided by Excise Commissioner, on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since question involved in the present writ petition is also identical, therefore, present writ petition may also be decided in the light of the aforesaid judgment with a direction to the Excise Commissioner to consider petitioner's Appeal, subject to petitioner depositing 12.5% of the disputed amount.

6. Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents fairly submits that facts involved in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1663 of 2021 are identical to facts of the present case and the legal issues are also identical in both the petitions. Thus, he submits that the present writ petition may be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1663 of 2021.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 21.08.2021 rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1663 of 2021 and it is provided that, if petitioner deposits 12.5% of the

disputed amount, within two weeks from today, petitioner's Appeal shall be heard and decided on merit.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.09.2021 is modified to the extent indicated above.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin