RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through Video Conferencing. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery notice dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P/4) issued by the District Excise Officer, Burhanpur (M.P.) - respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been required to pay an amount of Rs.16,50,09,325/- (Sixteen Crore Fifty Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Five only).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as W.P.No.7473/2020, in which this Court initially passed an interim order on 2.6.2020 restraining the respondents/State to take any coercive steps against the petitioner and later on that interim order was ordered to continue. Subsequently, on 22.7.2020 Writ Petition 7373/2020- (Maa Vaishno Enterprises and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) along with several other writ petitions including W.P.No.7473/2020 filed by the present petitioner was disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners wish, they may approach the respondents by filing an application/representation invoking Clauses 49 and 54 of the Excise Policy seeking remission/waiver of the excise duty, who shall consider and decide the representation in sympathetic manner. Aforesaid order was passed by the Court taking note of the change in the scenario and facts and circumstances due to Covid-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown. It was observed therein that there was no impediment for the licencees to seek refund of the amounts deposited towards process fee/conditions of allotment of liquor shop under Clause 49 and 54 of the Excise Policy 2020-21.

(3.) Learned counsel further contended that one of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7373/2020 challenged the final judgment dated 22.7.2020 passed in W.P.No.7373/2020 and connected petitions before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.10758/2020- (Alcoactive Retail Traders Pvt. Ltd. State of M.P. and others) . Eventually that SLP was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to make an application before the respondents in terms of para 128 of the judgment dated 22.7.2020. Initially, the petitioner herein made a representation (Annexure P/3) before the respondents on 29.9.2020 and thereafter another representation dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P/5) was submitted by the petitioner, but so far the respondents have not decided the said representations of the petitioner. It is prayed that the respondents may be directed to decide the same expeditiously.