Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 387 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-06

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-A licence was granted to the petitioner for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in district Pali for the year 1997-99. The Excise Department made a demand of interest on delayed deposit of security amount with regard to licence, which came to be challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition bearing No. S.B.C.W. No. 3522/1997, which stood disposed of by Judgment dated 18.09.1997. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before Division Bench of this Court (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1003/1997) wherein interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner in following terms:- “In the meanwhile, the respondents shall not insist on payment of interest on security deposit till the disposal of the stay petition.” 2. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 8 lacs against the interest under protest. The Department of Excise, thereafter, introduced a scheme in the name of Aabkari Amnesty Yojana Varsh 2002-03 for the purpose of setting and recovering the dues from the contractors having licence under Excise Act. The Scheme was made applicable to all those cases where any amount in favour of Excise Department was due on or before 31.03.2001. According to Clause 3.5 of the Scheme the due under the Excise Act of 1959 was required to be waived in accordance with the provisions of Section 30-AA of the Act of 1950 in the event of deposition of 10% of due interest if the original amount has already been deposited earlier. 3. The District Excise Officer, Pali by communication dated 17.02.2003 informed the petitioner that his dues against interest in a tune of Rs. 23,55,608/-could be settled under the Amesty Scheme 2002-03. The petitioner accordingly submitted an application to settle his case under the said Scheme but the District Excise Officer, Pali refused to entertain the case of the petitioner under the Scheme aforesaid on the count that the Scheme was applicable only for the cases pertaining to the years prior to 31.03.2001. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred with an allegation that the District Excise Officer erroneously denied benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioner. 4. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred with an allegation that the District Excise Officer erroneously denied benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the petitioner. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the Government has taken the decision to give relief to the licence holders who have committed default during their licence period 1999-2000 and 2000-01 only and the petitioner being a licence holder for the period of 1997-99, therefore, was not entitled for getting any relief under the Amnesty Scheme concerned. 5. Heard Counsel for the parties. 6. The Amnesty Scheme 2002-03 is available on record as Annexure-1. From perusal of the Amnesty Scheme it reveals that it is applicable to all those defaults occurred prior to 31.03.2003. The respondents have not placed any decision as stated in reply to the writ petition, confining the application of Amnesty Scheme for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 only. This Court by an order dated 16.01.2006 directed the respondents to produce such decision before the Court but the respondents failed to do so. 7. A bare look to the Amnesty Scheme dated 03.01.2003 makes it quite clear that it is having application for all those cases where default in payment of amount/interest made prior to 31.03.2001. It is not at all confined to the years 1999-2000 and 2000-03. The reason given by the District Excise Officer, Pali for not entertaining the case of the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme, therefore, is erroneous. The Amnesty Scheme 2002-03 is having application in the instant matter as the default in the payment of interest by the petitioner pertains to the year 1997-99. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to be considered for the payment of default made in payment of interest in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme 2002-03. 8. The writ petition, therefore, is accordingly allowed. The decision of the respondents as communicated to the petitioner under the communication dated 21.08.2003 (Annexure-4) is declared contrary to the Amnesty Scheme 2002-03 and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner with regard to default in payment of interest in accordance with the Amensty Scmeme 2002-03. 9. No order as to cost.