Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9964 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15217 of 2014)
State of Rajasthan & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
Khangar Singh ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the judgment delivered by the High Court of
th
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, dated 26 November, 2013
in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.110 of 1999 has been challenged.
3. The respondent is a dealer having license under the
provisions of the Rajasthan Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The
respondent was liable to pay license fees but as he could not pay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sarita Purohit
Date: 2014.10.31
15:34:48 IST
Reason:
the same, a notice dated 3.7.1998 had been issued to him by the
1
District Excise Officer, Barmer, calling upon him to pay
Rs.27,72,712/-. Due to non-payment of license fees, in spite of
the notice, an order dated 1.9.1998 was passed whereby license of
the respondent was cancelled and the security deposit was
ordered to be forfeited.
4. The appellant-State had framed a scheme named “Excise
Amnesty Scheme-year 2009-10” (hereinafter called ‘the Scheme’)
so as to give some relief to those licensees who had defaulted in
the payment of excise duty/license fee. Under the Scheme,
interest payable on arrears of excise duty was to be condoned on
the fulfillment of certain conditions. The benefit under the said
Scheme was to be given to those who were in arrears of excise
st
duty/license fees as on 31 March, 2009 and had applied to avail
st
the benefits under the Scheme on or before 31 March, 2010.
5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was in arrears on
st
31 March, 2009, but he had not made any application to avail
st
benefit under the Scheme till 31 March, 2010.
6. The respondent had filed a petition before the High Court
challenging the aforestated order dated 1.9.1998 and the validity
of proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise
Act, 1950.
7. After hearing the concerned counsel, without considering
2
the validity of proviso to sub-Section(1) of Section 9A of the
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, the High Court allowed the petition
and directed that the respondent should be given benefit under
the said Scheme and directed the respondent to pay in all
st
Rs.24,10,090/- along with 24% simple interest w.e.f. 1 April,
2010.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the State had submitted
that the High Court had no power to extend the date of Scheme so
th
as to give benefit of the Scheme to the respondent on 26
November, 2013, the day on which the said petition was finally
st
heard though the Scheme had come to an end on 31 March,
2010.
9. Moreover, it was also submitted that in fact more than
Rs.80,00,000/- were due to be paid by the respondent but the
correct details about the liability of the respondent was not
revealed before the High Court.
10. According to the learned counsel, the direction of the High
Court giving relief to the respondent under the Scheme, which had
already come to an end, was not just and proper and therefore, he
had prayed that the impugned judgment be quashed and set
aside.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
3
respondent had tried to support the impugned judgment by
submitting that the High Court had considered the real purpose
behind the formulation of the Scheme and looking at the financial
difficulties faced by the respondent, the High Court had directed
the respondent to deposit the amount referred to hereinabove and
had directed the appellants to accept the same as if the
respondent had applied under the scheme. He had, therefore,
submitted that the appeal filed by the State deserved dismissal.
12. We have heard the learned counsel and have considered the
facts of the case as well as the Scheme.
13. Upon perusal of the Scheme it is clear that to avail benefit
under the Scheme, the licensee in default or the one who was in
st
arrears, ought to have applied under the Scheme before 31
March, 2010. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had not
submitted any application under the Scheme within the
prescribed time period. It appears from the impugned judgment
that the High Court was not informed about the relevant facts and
the conditions for availing benefit under the Scheme, which had
not been fulfilled by the respondent. So as to know the bona fides
of the respondent, we had asked the learned counsel whether the
respondent had paid Rs.24,10,090/-, with interest thereon as
directed by the High Court by its impugned judgment. We had
4
been informed by the learned counsel that even the said reduced
amount had not been paid by the respondent to the appellant till
the date of hearing of this appeal.
14. Looking at the facts of the case, in our opinion, the High
Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court could not
have given benefit under the Scheme to the respondent when the
respondent had not applied under the scheme within the time
period prescribed under the Scheme. Moreover, the High Court,
while awarding relief to the respondent, was not even aware of the
exact amount which the respondent was liable to pay.
15. For the aforestated reasons, we quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and allow the appeal with no order as to
costs.
16. It would be open to the appellant-Authority to take
appropriate action for recovery of the amount due and payable by
the respondent in accordance with law.
………..……………….J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
…..…………………….J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 30,2014.
5
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.3 SECTION XV
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No......../2014 @ S.L.P.(C)No.15217/2014
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KHANGAR SINGH Respondent(s)
Date : 30/10/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the
Non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His
Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in
terms of the signed Non-reportable judgment.
(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
6