MANISH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1252 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019 relegating the appellant-writ petitioner to approach the Commissioner (Excise) by filing an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 within one week from the date of the order; and the Commissioner (Excise) was directed to decide the appeal as early as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.

(2.) While Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would place reliance on an order passed by this Court, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.563 of 2019, to contend that the learned Single Judge had held therein that the remedy of an appeal was not available, since such a remedy was available only with regards imposition of penalty or other dues, a bare reading of Section 11(1) of the Act would show that an appeal would lie against all proceedings under the Act, and is not confined only to orders whereby tax, fees, penalty or other dues are imposed. To that extent, we find no error in the order under appeal, whereby the appellant-writ petitioner was relegated to avail the appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would then place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in ABL International Ltd. and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others: (2004) 3 SCC 553, to contend that, even if an appeal lies, this Court can nonetheless entertain the Writ Petition.