Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1675 (RAJ)

Hotel Sahil Bar v. Distt. Excise Officer

2004-11-22

KAMAL NAYAN SHRIMAL, RAJEEV SWROOP

body2004
Jheky] lnL;&;g vihy jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼ftls rRipkr~ vf/kfu;e] 1950 ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 9A (a)(b) ds vUrxZr vkcdkjh vk;qDr jktLFkku] mn;iqj ds vknsk fnukad 13-9-2004 ¼Øekad i- 29¼ch½ vfHk@vkc@2004½ ds fo:) jktLFkku e.My esa fnukad 1-11-2004 dks izLrqr dh xbZ gSA dk;kZy; fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ us vihy ds lkFk 75 izfrkr dh jkfk tek djkus dk lcwr isk ugha fd;k gSA vihykFkhZ dks deh iwfrZ kh?kz djus dh fgnk;r nh xbZ ijUrq mldh mUgksaus ikyuk ugha dhA 2- fnukad 5-11-2004 dks vihykFkhZ i= isk dj fuosnu fd;k fd ^^vihykUV dks 75 izfrkr jkfk tek djokus dh vko;drk ugha gS] D;ksfd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k izdj.k /kkjk 58 ¼lh½ vf/kfu;e 1950 ds rgr Fkk] ftlesa vf/kdre 500@& :- kkfLr vf/kjksf"kr dh tk ldrh gS tcfd fo}ku vk;qDr us 50]000@& :- kkfLr yxkbZ gS tks iw.kZr% {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj tkdj yxkbZ gSA vr% vko;d izkFkZuk i= Lohd`r Qjek;k tkdj vihy ,MfeV QjekbZ tkosA** 3- geus vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dks vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ij lquk o muds }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ij euu fd;kA 4- vkcdkjh vk;qDr] jktLFkku mn;iqj dk vknsk fnukad 13-9-2004 bl izdkj gS ^^vr% jktLFkku vkcdkjh gksVy@Dyc ckj ykbZlsal fu;e] 1973 ds rgr tkjh krZ la- 8 esa iznRr kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fopkjk/khu vfHk;ksx dks :i;s 50]000@& ¼v{kjs ipkl gtkj½ esa la;ksT; djus ds vknsk fn;s tkrs gSA** 5- jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 9A(4) dk ijUrqd bl izdkj gS%& ``9A....... (4) ....... Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of payment of 75% of the amount of the demand created by the order appealed against. ^^vf/kfu;e 1950** dh /kkjk 9A(4) ds ijUrq esa kCn entertained iz;qDr gqvk gSA kCn entertained dks U;kf;d :i ls bl izdkj Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ^^ To adjudicate upon or to proceed to consider on merits Entertained dk eryc dk;Zokfg;ka izkjEHk ls djus ls ugha gSA ;w-ih- lsYlVSDl ,DV] 1948 dh /kkjk 9 dk ijUrqd bl izdkj gS%& ``Provided that no appeal against an assessment shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment by the appellant to due, or of such instalments thereof as may have become payable. mDr ijUrqd dh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us y{ehjru bathfu;fjax oDlZ fyfeVsM cuke vflLVsaV dkefkZ;y lsYlVSDl dkuiqj ¼1½] esa O;k[;k djrs gq, dgk gS fd%& ``...... mDr ijUrqd dh ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us y{ehjru bathfu;fjax oDlZ fyfeVsM cuke vflLVsaV dkefkZ;y lsYlVSDl dkuiqj ¼1½] esa O;k[;k djrs gq, dgk gS fd%& ``...... In our opinion these cases have taken a correct view oftheword `entertain with according to dictionary also means `admit to the consideration. It would therefore appear that the direction to the court in the proviso to Section 9 is that the court shall not proceed to admit to consideration an appeal which is not accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the admitted tax. This will be when the case is taken up by the court for teh first time...... 6- fgUnqLrku dkefkZ;y cSad fyfeVsM cuke iquks lkÅ ¼2½] esa vfHkO;fDr ``entertained tks vknsk 21 fu;e 90 lhihlh ds esa iz;qDr gqvk gS] dh O;k[;k djrs gq, ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us dgk gS fd%& ``...... It is contention of the appellant that the expression ``entertain found in the proviso refers to the initiation of the proceedings and not to the stage when the court takes up the application for consideration. This contention was rejected by the High Court relying on the decision of that Court in Kundan Lal vs. Jagan Nagh Sharma ( AIR 1962 All 547 ).. The same view had been taken by the said High Court in Dhoom Chand Jain vs. Chamanlal Gupta ( AIR 1962 All 543 ) and Haji Rahim Bux and Sons ( AIR 1963 All 320 ) and again in Mahavir Singh vs. Gauri Shankar ( AIR 1964 All 289 ). These decision have interpreted the expression, ``entertain as meaning `adjudicate upon or `proceed to consider on merits. This view of the High Court has been accepted as correct by this Court in Lakshmiratan Engineering works Ltd. vs. Asst. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur ( AIR 1968 SC 488 ). We are bound by that decision and as such we are unable to accpet the contention of the appellant the CI. (b) of the proviso did not apply to the present proceedigns. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur ( AIR 1968 SC 488 ). We are bound by that decision and as such we are unable to accpet the contention of the appellant the CI. (b) of the proviso did not apply to the present proceedigns. 7- LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke ek:fr m|ksx fyfeVsM ¼3½] esa gfj;k.kk tujy lsYlVSDl ,DV dh /kkjk 39¼5½ dh O;k[;k ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us bl izdkj dh gS fd %& ``When the first proviso to Section 39(5) speaks ofthe entertainment of apeal, it means that the appeal will ot be admitted to consideration unless there is satisfactory proof available of the making of the deposit of admitted tax. jktLFkku LVsV jksM VªklaiksVZ dkjiksjsku cuke Jherh larks"k ,.M vnlZ ¼4½ esa eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1998 dh /kkjk 173 esa iz;qDr kCn entertained dh O;k[;k ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us bl izdkj dh gS fd%& ``The Word used in proviso to S. 173(1) is `entertained. If the legislature intended that the word ``file or ``receive was to be used there was no difficulty of using those words. In some of the Statutes, such expressions have in fact been used. The legislature thus was not at a loss for words if it has wanted to express itself by using any phraseology. The legislature has used the word ``Entertain and it must be accepted that it has been used advisedly. The High Court under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot refuse to take an appeal, which is not backed by deposit of Rs. 25,000/- of 50% of the amount awarded against the appellant whichever is less but is cannot judicially consider such appeal either for admission or for disposal of the stay application. blh fu.kZ; ds iSjk 9 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA ``From perusal of the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 now, the High Court has not been given any discretion to reduce or enhance these amounts, which is to be deposited by the appellant in Court before filing the appeal could be judicially considered by the High Court. 8- mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds ifjizs{; esa gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vihykFkhZ dh vihy rHkh entertain dh tk ldrh gS tcfd vihykFkhZ }kjk ns; jkfk dh 75 izfrkr jkfk tek djkbZ tk;sA vihykFkhZ us ns; jkfk dk 75 izfrkr tek djkus dk dksbZ izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vihykFkhZ us vknsk fnukad 13-9-2004 ds fo:) jktLo e.My esa fnukad 1-9-2004 ds fo:) jktLo e.My esa fnukad 1-11-2004 dks vihy izLrqr dh gS] tks ^^vf/kfu;e 1950^^ dh /kkjk 9A(4) ds ijUrqd ds vuqlkj iks"k.kh; ugha gSA 9- ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vihykFkhZ }kjk ns; jkfk dk 75 izfrkr tek djkus dh NwV nh tkus dh izkFkZuk vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA QyLo:i vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA 10- vknsk [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA