MANOHARLAL AND PARTY Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is placed for orders on the second stay application but looking to the fact that the matter is of the year 1997 and that a short controversy is involved therein, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31st of January, 1997 Annexure- 11, the order of the respondent. Under this order the respondent dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of interest payable on the guarantee amount. The respondent declined to grant the prayer made for waiver of interest on the ground that the petitioner refused to pay the principal amount of guarantee.

(3.) THE petitioner alleged that since the date of grant of excise license, the Administrative authority of the respondent Department at Bundi and the Police did not allow the excise shops to run and created number of hindrances in running thereof. It is stated that the police authorities of the District involved the salesmen of the petitioner in false cases and humiliated by arresting them. THE police authorities also alleged to have seized the excise articles of the petitioner on number of occasions and ordered to close the shops. It is further stated that the respondent Department ordered to change the location of the excise shops and sub-shops notified at the time of grant of licenses and also not approved the locations of the new shops in spite of efforts made by the petitioner. As a result of these alleged illegal activities of the respondent and the police department the petitioner could not stand to his commitment to deposit the license fees in time. THE license period came to an end on 31st of March, 1996. THE case of the petitioner is that he deposited entire amount of exclusive privilege with the respondent Department and not a single penny of the principal amount in relation to license fees for the year 1995-96 of Bundi- Hindoli Group of Shops remained due against the petitioner. THE petitioner grievanced that despite of the fact narrated above the respondent Department, though it was not chargeable, made a demand of the interest of Rs. 12. 87 lacs. He filed an application for waiver of interest amount; that has been rejected under the impugned order and thus the writ petition.