BALRAJ ANTIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against recovery notice dated nil (P-4) passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer(X), Sonepat calling upon the petitioner to deposit the excise arrears of Rs. 10,63,665/-. The recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner on account of non-payment of licence fee which resulted into cancellation of the vend allotted to him. Subsequently, the vend was put to reallotment entirely at the risk of the petitioner under Rules 36(24) and (25) of the Haryana Liquor and Licence Rules 1970 (for brevity 'the Rules'). The vend was reallotted to Radha Ram Jain for Rs. 4,51,000/- which was short by 10,49,000/- + 5465/- interest so as the total amount recoverable from the petitioner has been calculated at Rs. 10,63,655/-. It is appropriate to mention that the liquor vend of L-14A was allotted to the petitioner in the draw of lots held in March 2006 for Rs. 30,00,000/-. He started running the vend and also paid instalments @ Rs. 3 lakhs per month till June, 2006. It is claimed that in July, 2006 the liquor vend caught fire resulting into huge loss. As a consequence, the petitioner offered to surrender the liquor vend to respondent vide letter dated 19.10.2006. The claim made by the petitioner is that the aforementioned application has to be treated as the one filed under Section 44 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (as applicable to Haryana and for brevity 'the Act').

(2.) MR . Gaurav Mohunta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once letter dated 19.10.2006 was sent to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner-respondent No.2 which has been diarzed in their postal register then it becomes clear that the petitioner had expressed the intention to surrender the licence. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner accordingly becomes entitled to benefit under Section 44 of the Act because he had expressed his inability to run the liquor vend. The learned counsel has mentioned that no recovery could be effected by the respondent by the impugned order.

(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that this petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner was allotted the liquor vend in the category of L- 14A for a period of one year commencing from April,2006 to March, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The allotment was subject to terms and conditions and further as per procedure of excise policy for the year 2006- 07. According to the Haryana Liquor Licence Rules 1977 (for brevity 'the Rules'), the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- per month which he deposited till June,2006 and thereafter defaulted. As a consequence, his licence became irregular and was liable to cancellation under Section 36(b) of the Act. An intimation in that regard was sent to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner-respondent No. 2 and necessary permission for reallottment of the vend under Rule 36(24) of the Rules was obtained. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 3.11.2006 (P-2) was issued to the petitioner asking him to explain within seven days of the receipt of the said notice as to why his licence be not cancelled under Section 36(b) of the Act. He was also further asked to explain as to why his entire amount of security for un-expired period of the licence be not forfeited under Rule 37(36) of the Rules. The notice was duly served but no reply was sent by the petitioner. Accordingly order dated 21.11.2006 (R-4) was passed cancelling liquor vend licence allotted to the petitioner under Section 36(b) of the Act. The security of the petitioner was forfeited under Rule 37(36) of the Rules. There is no legal infirmity in the aforementioned procedure followed by the respondent.