VARUNVEER Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging an order dated 04.11.2016 (hereafter "the impugned order") passed by respondent no. 1 (hereafter "the Financial Commissioner"), whereby, the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 19.10.2015 passed by respondent no. 2 (hereafter "the Excise Commissioner") was rejected. By the aforesaid order dated 19.10.2015, the Excise Commissioner had upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Entertainment & Luxury Tax for confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle - Mitsubishi Pajero bearing No. DL- 2FHP-0011 (hereafter "the vehicle").

(2.) The principal controversy in the present petition is whether the vehicle could be confiscated under Section 58 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (hereafter "the Act") for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 33 of the Act, even though, the petitioner (the owner of the vehicle) and the person who was driving the vehicle at the material time had been acquitted of the said offence. It is the petitioner's case that he had no role to play in the commission of the offence; his vehicle cannot be confiscated under the Act.

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-