KASTURI LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a licensee dealing in liquor. He is resisting the recovery of Rs. 4,701.82 found due against him, by the respondents. He accordingly seeks quashment of office order dated 20.08.1983 passed by respondent No. 2 and the final attachment notice dated 22.02.1988 issued by respondent No.3 for the recovery of the assessed fee as arrears of land revenue under Sec. 64 of the Land Revenue Act.

(2.) IT appears that assessed fee on IMFL/Beer was raised vide SRO -407 dated 20.07.1983. As a consequence the licencees were asked to pay the assessed fee within the stipulated time by office order impugned dated 20.08.1983. It seems that the petitioner did not respond and was consequently put on notice on 17.11.1987 asking him to liquidate the arrears. A certificate of recovery was thereafter issued against him and finally the attachment notice dated 22.02.1988 was issued by respondent No. 3 proposing to sell his movable property. The petitioner has challenged the action primarily on the grounds: (i) that no notice was given to him before the final notice of attachment was issued by respondent No. 3; (ii) that order of respondent No. 2 is ultra vires the provisions of the Excise Act as the period for payment of the assessed fee could be specified only by the Government; (iii) that the amount demanded is not recoverable under Sec. 24 -A and consequently cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

(3.) RESPONDENTS , in their objections have submitted that the petitioner was required to pay the assessed fee by 25th of the month next to which the payment related and was also liable to pay a sum equal to two percent of such amount of each month or part thereof for payment made after the prescribed date. Penal interest at the rate of two percent was also recoverable from him for utilising the Government money after it became due. It is submitted that Sec. 24 -A of the Excise Act is not a replacement of Sec. 24 and the arrear of assessed fee is recoverable as arrears of land revenue under both the provisions. It is also asserted that the notices were issued to the petitioner requiring him to liquidate the arrears before the final attachment notice was given to him.