ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recovery initiated against the petitioner in respect of unlifted quantity of minimum guaranteed quantity (hereinafter referred to as 'M.G.Q.'), were initiated by issuance of a recovery certificate dated 30.9.2003. The petitioner filed an appeal against the recovery proceedings before the Commissioner, Allahabad under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Excise Act. It was his case that the entire quantity of M.G.Q. has been lifted by him, yet while seeking refund of his security money, the respondents have illegally shown the balance amount towards the unlifted quantity of M.G.Q. and on that basis, recovery proceedings have been initiated.

(2.) The contention made by the petitioner was opposed by the District Excise Authority and it was stated that the petitioner had not lifted 1561.85 bulk litres of the minimum guaranteed quantity and therefore, he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,28,072 representing the value of the unlifted quantity of M.G.Q.

(3.) The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Excise Commissioner vide order dated 17.6.2007. Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act being Revision No. 62 of 2007. The Revision has also dismissed on 4.5.2010 after recording a finding that the petitioner has not lifted 561.85 bulk litres of M.G.Q. and therefore, the recovery in the facts of the case was justified. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, 1996 5 SCC 740, and State of U.P. v. S.P. Rat,1994 1 SCC 8, for the purpose that a licensee cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his contractual obligation of lifting of the minimum quantity, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner were, therefore, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the State Government proceeded to dismiss the revision vide order dated 4.5.2010.