Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 7 (RAJ)

Laxmi Lal v. Excise Commissioner, Udaipur

2016-01-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. Nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner on 2.12.15 and 14.12.15 either. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 24.9.14 passed by the Commissioner, Excise, Udaipur and has sought directions to the respondents to consider his case for releasing the vehicle in his favour on 'Supurdginama'. 4. On 18.2.15, while issuing notices to the respondents, an interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner in the following terms : "In the meanwhile, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.RJ-27-GA-5972 confiscated pursuant to the order dated 24.9.14 may be released on 'Supurdginama' subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- within a period of two weeks and furnishes solvent security for remaining amount of penalty to the satisfaction of the District Excise Officer, Jaipur Rural." 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not deposited the amount in terms of the interim order passed by this Court and therefore, the vehicle confiscated has already been auctioned. Learned counsel contended that the order impugned dated 24.9.14 passed by the Commissioner, Excise, Udaipur, is appealable under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 ('the Act') before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is to be noticed that despite indulgence being granted, the petitioner has not cared to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 18.2.15 passed by this Court and the vehicle confiscated already stands auctioned. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the availability of effective and efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9A of the Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Dismissed accordingly.