State Of Rajasthan vs Khangar Singh

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9964 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15217 of 2014)

State of Rajasthan & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus

Khangar Singh ... Respondent

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the judgment delivered by the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, dated 26 th November, 2013

in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.110 of 1999 has been challenged.

3. The respondent is a dealer having license under the

provisions of the Rajasthan Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substance Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The

Signature Not Verified respondent was liable to pay license fees but as he could not pay Digitally signed by Sarita Purohit Date: 2014.10.31 15:34:48 IST Reason: the same, a notice dated 3.7.1998 had been issued to him by the

1 District Excise Officer, Barmer, calling upon him to pay

Rs.27,72,712/-. Due to non-payment of license fees, in spite of

the notice, an order dated 1.9.1998 was passed whereby license of

the respondent was cancelled and the security deposit was

ordered to be forfeited.

4. The appellant-State had framed a scheme named “Excise

Amnesty Scheme-year 2009-10” (hereinafter called ‘the Scheme’)

so as to give some relief to those licensees who had defaulted in

the payment of excise duty/license fee. Under the Scheme,

interest payable on arrears of excise duty was to be condoned on

the fulfillment of certain conditions. The benefit under the said

Scheme was to be given to those who were in arrears of excise

duty/license fees as on 31st March, 2009 and had applied to avail

the benefits under the Scheme on or before 31 st March, 2010.

5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was in arrears on

31st March, 2009, but he had not made any application to avail

benefit under the Scheme till 31st March, 2010.

6. The respondent had filed a petition before the High Court

challenging the aforestated order dated 1.9.1998 and the validity

of proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise

Act, 1950.

7. After hearing the concerned counsel, without considering

2 the validity of proviso to sub-Section(1) of Section 9A of the

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, the High Court allowed the petition

and directed that the respondent should be given benefit under

the said Scheme and directed the respondent to pay in all

Rs.24,10,090/- along with 24% simple interest w.e.f. 1 st April,

2010.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the State had submitted

that the High Court had no power to extend the date of Scheme so

as to give benefit of the Scheme to the respondent on 26 th

November, 2013, the day on which the said petition was finally

heard though the Scheme had come to an end on 31 st March,

2010.

9. Moreover, it was also submitted that in fact more than

Rs.80,00,000/- were due to be paid by the respondent but the

correct details about the liability of the respondent was not

revealed before the High Court.

10. According to the learned counsel, the direction of the High

Court giving relief to the respondent under the Scheme, which had

already come to an end, was not just and proper and therefore, he

had prayed that the impugned judgment be quashed and set

aside.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

3 respondent had tried to support the impugned judgment by

submitting that the High Court had considered the real purpose

behind the formulation of the Scheme and looking at the financial

difficulties faced by the respondent, the High Court had directed

the respondent to deposit the amount referred to hereinabove and

had directed the appellants to accept the same as if the

respondent had applied under the scheme. He had, therefore,

submitted that the appeal filed by the State deserved dismissal.

12. We have heard the learned counsel and have considered the

facts of the case as well as the Scheme.

13. Upon perusal of the Scheme it is clear that to avail benefit

under the Scheme, the licensee in default or the one who was in

arrears, ought to have applied under the Scheme before 31 st

March, 2010. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had not

submitted any application under the Scheme within the

prescribed time period. It appears from the impugned judgment

that the High Court was not informed about the relevant facts and

the conditions for availing benefit under the Scheme, which had

not been fulfilled by the respondent. So as to know the bona fides

of the respondent, we had asked the learned counsel whether the

respondent had paid Rs.24,10,090/-, with interest thereon as

directed by the High Court by its impugned judgment. We had

4 been informed by the learned counsel that even the said reduced

amount had not been paid by the respondent to the appellant till

the date of hearing of this appeal.

14. Looking at the facts of the case, in our opinion, the High

Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court could not

have given benefit under the Scheme to the respondent when the

respondent had not applied under the scheme within the time

period prescribed under the Scheme. Moreover, the High Court,

while awarding relief to the respondent, was not even aware of the

exact amount which the respondent was liable to pay.

15. For the aforestated reasons, we quash and set aside the

impugned judgment and allow the appeal with no order as to

costs.

16. It would be open to the appellant-Authority to take

appropriate action for recovery of the amount due and payable by

the respondent in accordance with law.

………..……………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

…..…………………….J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 30,2014.

5

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.3 SECTION XV (For judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No......../2014 @ S.L.P.(C)No.15217/2014

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KHANGAR SINGH Respondent(s)

Date : 30/10/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv.

Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the Non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed Non-reportable judgment.

(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

(Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

6