EXCISE COMMISSIONER, UDAIPUR Vs. VIMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17477/2022, while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

(2.) Brief facts, which emanates from the pleadings, are that on 4/7/2015, a tanker (hereinafter also referred to as 'vehicle in question') of the respondent was inspected by the District Excise Officer (Distillery), Udaipur, during the course of which, theft of the spirit was found.

(3.) Mr. Praduman Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Excise Commissioner submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Tax Board suffers from grave legal infirmity, because the observation of the learned Tax Board that the owner of the vehicle in question has already suffered losses due to a penalty having been imposed by the contractor(s) as a part of the contractual agreement between the two private parties, is not a proposition which could have been gone into by the learned Tax Board; the payment of Rs.17,32,208.00 as per the contractual breach of the agreement dtd. 15/10/2014 can have no bearing in the present case.