LAWS(PAT)-1996-10-23

PAWAN KUMAR SINGHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 17, 1996
PAWAN KUMAR SINGHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the petitioners in this batch of six writ petitioners, holding licences under the Bihar Excise Act, 1915, 'exported' from this State large quantities of Indian made Foreign Liquor ('IMFE for short) on the basis of import permits purportedly issued by the excise authorities of different importing States. It later transpired that in most cases those import permits were fake and were not issued by the authorities of the importing State as shown in the bogus permits. It further came to light that none of the 'exported' consignments were delivered at the authorised destinations in the importing States; and this was also true of the exports made against the few import permits which were not found to be fake. It was, thus, plain that large quantities of non-duty paid IMFL, following their removal from the Bonded Warehouses in this State were sold clandestinely either in this State or in some other States, thereby causing enormous loss of excise duty to this State. The excise authorities therefore, raised demands against the exporters, the petitioners in these writ petitions for payment if excise duty on the IMFL fraudulently shown to have been exported to other States on the basis of those import permits. The authorities invoked clause (2) of the Bond (in Statutory Form No. 158) executed by the petitioners, holding them liable to make good the loss of excise duty suffered by the State. These writ petitions have been filed assailing those demands raised against the petitioners by the excise authorities. In some of these cases the petitioners have come to this Court after moving the Board of Revenue against the impugned demand; some writ petitioners, however, have approached this Court directly to challenge the demand of excise duty raised against them.

(2.) Before proceeding to examine the contending claims, we propose to briefly state the material facts of each case which, excepting some minor details, are similar in all material particulars. It may be noted at the outset that for the years 1982-83 & 1983-84 the petitioners had obtained licences (i) in statutory form No. 1 for the sale of Foreign Liquor to the Trade, that is to other licenced Dealers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wholesale Licence') and (ii) in statutory form No. IA. To Deposit or keep Foreign Liquor Imported or Transported under Bond in a Warehouse Established with The Approval of the Excise Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bonded Warehouse Licence'). Further, as required under clause 1 of the Bonded Warehouse Licence (in Form No. 1A) all the petitioners had also executed a general bond for Import, Export and Transport of Excisable Articles without payment of Duty in form No. 156. The bonds executed by the petitioners were subsisting along with their licences for the years in question. C.W.J.C. No. 3710 of 1990 Pawan Kr. Singhi v. State of Bihar

(3.) According to the petitioner, during the aforesaid period, import permit Nos. 278 and 379, dated 29-10-1993 were issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mahe, Pondicheri in favour of M/s. T Abraham and Co. Mahe, for importing 7938.00 L.P. Litres of IMFL. On production of the two import permits in the office of the Commissioner of Excise, Bihar, Patna export sanction was granted in respect of those import permits vide order No. 304, dated 20-1-1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise (D.W). On the basis of the export sanction, the Superintendent of Excise, Dumka issued export passes with the endorsement, 'duty paid'. The petitioner then prepared invoices and supplied the specified quantity of IMFL to the importer on payment of its cost price. The Officer Incharge posted at the petitioner's Bonded Warehouse issued transport passes for exporting 7938.00 L.R Litres of IMFL. On the transport passes too, the Officer-in-charge made the entry that the excise duty on the consignment had been paid at the State Bank of India, Mahe. Thus following the due procedure, the specified quantity of IMFL was removed from the petitioner's Bonded Warehouse and was handed over to the importing party.