MOTEL HILLOOK PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted licence to run the bar in the hotel for the year 1996 -97 by the respondent No. 2 on payment of initial fees of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. It was renewed from time to time. Lastly it was renewed till 31st March, 1999. For the year 1998 -99 the licence was renewed upto 31st March, 1999 on payment of licence fee of Rs. 3,00,000/ -. Thereafter, a notification dated 9th July, 1998 (Annex.3) was issued by the State Government raising existing fees for item No. 6 -A from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs by amending Rule 68 of Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956. On issuance of the said notification, a notice was issued by the Excise Inspector, Abu Road on 17.8.1998 calling upon the petitioner to pay the enhanced amount of licence fees. Aggrieved that, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) MR . Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the year 1999 -2000 he has paid the renewed licence fees of Rs. 4 lakhs but he is aggrieved by the notice dated 17.8.1994 (Annex.4) issued by the Inspector calling upon him to pay the enhanced amount of licence fees. By notification at Annex.3 it is made clear that Rajasthan Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1988 shall come into force at once. No retrospective effect is given to the said Rules. Licence obtained by charging the fees prevailing at that time, therefore, cannot be enhanced for that year. It was meant only for those persons who applied for the licence after the rules were amended. That is the language of the notification itself. Therefore, there is no question of quashing the said notification. The submission of learned Counsel Shri Vyas for the respondent was that as soon as the notification (Annex. 3) came into force for that years also the petitioner has to pay the enhanced licence fees, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was no retrospective effect to the said Rules. Even if retrospective effect was given to the Rules then it would have been quashed in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Amarjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1994 (Raj.) 146. It was a case related to mining. It was sought to be revised with retrospective effect. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Amarjeet Singh's case (supra) that it cannot be allowed retrospectively as the Rules were in nature of subordinate legislation.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition is allowed and the impugned notice Annex.4 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.