RANJAN KR BANERJEE Vs. STATEOF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE orders, all dated 11. 8. 08, passed by the Collector of Excise, Kolkata (North) are the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. By the first order (at pg. 41 of the petition), the Collector has cancelled the petitioner's licence of the private warehouse for the deposit and storage of foreign liquor in exercise of power conferred by Section 42 (1 ) (b) of the Bengal Excise Act (hereafter the Excise Act ). Clause (b) (supra) authorizes cancellation of licence if any fee, tax or fee payable by the holder thereof is not duly paid. By the other two orders (at pgs. 42 and 43 of the petition), passed in exercise of power conferred by Section 42 (2) of the said Act, two other licenses held by the petitioner were also cancelled.

(2.) MR. Kar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, led by Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel while inviting the attention of the Court to various orders passed in earlier proceedings between the parties assailed the impugned orders by submitting that the same have been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, the notice to show cause, which preceded the final order of cancellation, did not at all specify the proposed action, viz. cancellation of licence and as such the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity to show cause. Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 136. Moreover, the learned Advocates who represented the petitioner at the hearing were not heard on a flimsy ground and the impugned orders were passed practically without hearing the defence version. It is further contended that whatever default had been committed by the petitioner in paying the taxes had been condoned by reason of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in C. O. T. T. No. 2 of 2008 dated 12. 8. 08 and 14. 8. 08 and the petitioner having paid approximately Rs. 1. 3 crore out of the due amount of Rs. 1. 9 crore and since is in the process of liquidating the balance amount in terms of the time frame fixed by the Taxation Tribunal, these are circumstances deserving kind consideration of this Court for granting interim relief, as prayed for.

(3.) MR. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the Collector raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition.