Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 30 (MP)

Neeti Bhatia v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-01-13

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Hearing convened through Video Conferencing: 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of at motion stage. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order No. Excise/2020-21/12 dated 5.1.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, Excise Department, District - Anuppur (M.P.), whereby giving opportunity under the Principles of Natural Justice, a recovery notice has been issued to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 1,00,16,620/- within seven days from the date of receipt of said notice, failing which, action shall be taken to recover the aforesaid amount from the Bank Guarantee, Fixed Deposit and Postdated Cheques deposited by the petitioner in the said office. 3. Shri Brian D'Silva, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner within seven days from the date of issuance of aforesaid notice submitted an application/representation (Annexure P/6) on 7.1.2021 invoking Clause 49 of the Excise Policy 2020-21 read with judgment passed by this Court on 22.7.2020 in Writ Petition No. 7373/2020- Maa Vaishno Enterprises and others Vs. State of M.P. & others, giving detailed reasons why the petitioner is entitled to the rebate not only in the licence fee but also in the minimum guaranteed excise duty. The petitioner has also filed a separate application (Annexure P/7) dated 7.1.2021 inviting attention of the Collector, Excise Department, Anuppur that she has recently submitted a fresh application invoking Clause 49 of the Excise Policy, thereby seeking waiver of the minimum guaranteed excise duty payable on account of losses suffered due to the prevailing circumstances. Learned Counsel further submitted that the rebate of 30% granted by the respondents on the minimum guaranteed excise duty is wholly inadequate. The petitioner ought to be granted much more rebate than just 30% as she suffered enormous losses during the period of lockdown, not just during first 34 days but also during each succeeding month. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an order passed by this Court on 6.1.2021 in Writ Petition No. 20915/2020-Nakul Ram Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. & others. He also relied on the judgment dated 22.7.2020 (Writ Petition No. 7373/2020- Maa Vaishno Enterprises and others Vs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an order passed by this Court on 6.1.2021 in Writ Petition No. 20915/2020-Nakul Ram Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. & others. He also relied on the judgment dated 22.7.2020 (Writ Petition No. 7373/2020- Maa Vaishno Enterprises and others Vs. State of M.P. & others), by which, bunch of petitions were disposed of by this Court with the observations that if the petitioners find that they are at a loss in operating the allotted liquor shops, they can opt to invoke Clause 49 of the Excise Policy to seek remission/waiver of Excise duty to the extent of loss and for that purpose file an application to the District Committee provided thereunder who shall send a fact finding report to the State Government whereupon decision on waiver of Excise duty shall be taken. It was further directed that it shall be open for the petitioners to approach the Competent Authority of the respondents invoking Clauses 49 and 54 of the Excise Policy 2020-21 and due to changed scenario and the facts and circumstances, the said Authority shall consider the claim of the petitioners sympathetically and take decision in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Committee so far has not submitted its fact finding report to the State Government on the application submitted by the petitioner invoking Clause 49 of the Excise Policy on 7.1.2021. The respondents ought not to therefore invoke the Bank Guarantee or otherwise recover the amount from the fixed deposit and post dated cheques submitted by the petitioner pursuant to demand notice dated 5.1.2021. 6. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the rebate of 30% on the minimum guaranteed excise duty has already been granted to the petitioner on her invoking Clause 49 of the Excise Policy, 2020-21. The competent authority has also granted proportionate rebate in the amount of licence fee for 34 days during which period the liquor shops were ordered to remain closed. The petitioner is not entitled for any further rebate or remission. 7. This Court while deciding the bunch of petitions (W.P. No. 7373/2020 and connected matters) has passed the following order:- "128. The competent authority has also granted proportionate rebate in the amount of licence fee for 34 days during which period the liquor shops were ordered to remain closed. The petitioner is not entitled for any further rebate or remission. 7. This Court while deciding the bunch of petitions (W.P. No. 7373/2020 and connected matters) has passed the following order:- "128. In view of the stand of the State that if the petitioners find that they are at a loss in operating the allotted liquor shops, they can opt to invoke Clause 49 of the Excise Policy to seek remission/waiver of Excise duty to the extent of loss, file an application to the District committee provided thereunder who shall send a fact finding report to the State Government whereupon decision on waiver of Excise duty shall be taken, it shall be open for the petitioners to approach the competent Authority of the respondents invoking Clauses 49 and 54 of the Excise Policy 2020-21 and due to changed scenario and the fact and circumstances, the said Authority shall consider the claim of the petitioners sympathetically and take decision in accordance with law." 8. Considering the aforesaid directions of the Court and also the opportunity under the Principles of Natural Justice given to the petitioner in the demand notice dated 5.1.2021 against recovery, we dispose of this writ petition with direction to the District Committee to forward the fact finding report to the State Government within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order either by the petitioner or through her representative in terms of the directions of this Court in the aforesaid judgment and thereafter the State Government shall take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. 9. It is further directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner in pursuance to the demand notice dated 5.1.2021, till the decision is taken by the State Government on the said representation of the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.