LAWS(RAJ)-1992-5-16

SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 05, 1992
SATISH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the non- petitioners may be directed to release the Bank guarantee and solvent security submitted by the petitioner. It is also prayed that in view of the division bench judgment given in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mahalaxmi Paints Industries, Ajmer (1) decided on March 21,1986, whatever security in the nature of Bank guarantee or otherwise submitted by the petitioner may be deemed to have been discharged and a declaration to this effect may be given.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition praying that the State Legislature has no power to legislate any law controlling and restraining business of Thinner or imposing any excise duty or tax or fee on denatured spirit and denatured spirituous preparations like Thinner. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Paints Industries (supra) wherein this court has held that Thinner denatured spirit is not excisable under the Rajasthan Excise Act and, therefore, the State cannot compel the petitioner either to give solvent security or Bank guarantee on denatured spirit and denatured spirituous preparation like Thinner etc. and the security in the nature of Bank guarantee and whatever amount has been deposited by the petitioner under protest against the excise duty on the above articles may be refunded. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- and solvent security to the tune of about Rs. 16 lacs as well as paid excise duty in cash to the tune of Rs. 36, 158. 20 paise under protest on various occasions. THE petitioner after the decision of the Division Bench submitted to the respondent vide letter dated 22. 4. 1986 that the amount may be refunded and the bank guarantee and security may be discharged, but without any result. THErefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THUS, in this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. .