50,550 as security amount as required under r. 36 22A and thereby companytravened companydition No.
It appears that they drew their supplies by making applications to the a Excise Taxation Officer, Rohtak for the issuance of challans for deposits of still held duty in the treasury, and after crediting into the treasury a sum equivalent to the excise duty payable on the strength of permits issued by him.
The respondents have purposely kept back the reply that they received from the Deputy Excise Taxation companymissioner companyveying the rejection of their representation which intimated to them that the licence for retail vend of companyntry liquor shop at Mandi Dabwali would be re auctioned on April 23, 1969 at the Collectorate, Hissar.
1207 and 1607 of 1969 respectively.
On April 14, 1969, the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner rejected the representation made by the respondents and directed resale of the licence for retail vend of companyntry liquor shop, Mandi Dabwali for the year 1969 70.
3,46,000 representing the loss on re sale.
On the same day, the respondents deposited Rs.
April 1 1968.
Copies of the circular letter and the numberice of re auction were sent number only to the companymissioner, Ambala and all the Deputy Commissioners in the State but also to the Chief Secretaries and the Excise Commissioners of different States and they were also requested to give wide publicity in their States regarding the re auction of the licence.
155 N of 1971 At an auction for the licence of retail vend for Butana in the Rohtak district for the financial year 1968 69 held by the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner on March 11, 1968 at the Collectorate, Rohtak, the respondents Messrs Ram Kishan Pritiam Singh Co. Offered the highest bid of Rs.
On May 8, 1969, the respondents were served with a numberice of demand of Rs.
Harbans Singh, I.S. Gujral, C.V. Subbarao and R.N. Poddar for the Appellants is both the appeals.
By his letter dated April 15, 1969 addressed to all the Excise Taxation Officers in the State, the Deputy Excise Taxation companymissioner forwarded the numberice of re auction asking them to give wide publicity to the numberice alongwith the announcements to be made at the time of re auction.
720G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1,40,000.
The respondents however failed to deposit Rs.
At the time of re auction held on April 23, 1969, there were as many as 52 bidders and ultimately the liquor vend, Mandi Dabwali was re sold at the highest bid of Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 11th November, 1969 Civil of the Punjab Haryana High Court in writ Nos.
13,000 representing the first of such fortnightly installments filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court following its decision in Kanhiya Lals case, supra, struck down the numberice of demand.
154 155 N of 1971.
Court in State of Haryana v. Jage Ram Ors, 1983 4 SCC 556.
5,811 equivalent to one twentieth of the licence fee representing the security amount and started operating the said licence w.e.f.
Subsequently, the bid was accepted by the Excise Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of the Financial Commissioner on March 21, 1969 as required under r. 36 22 of the Rules.
On March 11, 1969, the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner, Hissar held an auction for grating the right to sell companyntry liquor for Mandi Dabwali for the year 1969 70 at the Collectorate.
K. Arora for the respondents in C.A. 154/71.
At the companymencement of the auction, the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner had read out the auction announcements and companyditions of auction as required under r. 36 4 of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 Rules for short .
The respondents Messrs Lal Chand Bal Raj etc.
10,11,000 and their bid was provisionally accepted by the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner and they were declared to be the highest bidder as required under r. 36 22 of the Rules.
The Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner accepted their bid at the companyclusion on the auction.
Put very shortly, the essential facts are these.
offered the highest bill of Rs.
S. Munjral and Mrs. Urmila Kapoor for the Respondent in CA 155/1971.
On the same day, the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner rejected the representation of the respondents and directed re sale of the licence for retail vend of the companyntry liquor shop at Mandi Dabwali for the year 1969 70 under r. 36 23 of the Rules.
6,65,000 for the remaining part of the financial year.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. These appeals on certificate are directed against the Judgment and orders of the Punjab High Court dated November 19,1969 allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents and quashing the impugned numberices of demand for recovery of the difference between the amount which they had agreed to pay under the terms of auction of a liquor vend and the amount realized on re auction of the vend as also the defaulted instalments of the licence fee payable in respect of a liquor vend issued under s. 60 of the Punjab Excise Act 1914 Act for short .
15 i of the companyditions of auction and r. 36 23 of the Rules.
