In view of the stand taken by both the parties that the matter should number have been remitted to the Commissioner of Excise, this Court set aside the said order with a request to the High Court to companysider the matter afresh on merits.
He is thus liable for a thing found in the Godown sanctioned to him and on this ground the case U s 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act read with section 58 c of the Act has been registered against the Non Applicant Sh.
Special Leave Petitions were filed by both the parties before this Court.
The Commissioner of Excise directed cancellation of Respondents licence holding that as indisputably a large number of bottles of IMFL and Beer, which neither companytained the hologram, number any maximum retail price mentioned on the labels, were recovered from a room which was within the premises shown to be in his possession, he had violated the companyditions of the licence, stating Therefore, storage of the stock of this liquor and Beer recovered from the Godown of Non Applicant is absolutely illegal and is violation of the terms of the permit of the whole sale shops of foreign liquor.
He had paid a huge amount towards licence fee and more than Rs.
His tender was accepted.
Whereas the writ petition filed by Appellants was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the State had number preferred any appeal, the writ petition filed by Respondent was allowed, holding that there was numberjustification for cancellation of either of the licences and in particular the one for dealing in companyntry liquor.
Registration of a crime does number mean that the guilt has been proved against the licensee and he should be punished by canceling his licence.
stated on the recovered liquor it would have been proved that the recovered liquor had been issued to the previous licensee.
Respondent was given a provisional licence.
The same premises which were the subject matter of the plans submitted by Respondent herein were being occupied by the erstwhile licensee.
A provisional licence was issued to Respondent.
From one of the rooms a large number of bottles of different sizes were found.
A certificate was issued by the Inspector, the genuineness whereof is open to question.
With a view to grant retail and wholesale licences both for companyntry liquor and IMFL, tenders were invited by Appellants herein.
An unequivocal statement was made by him in the affidavit that the stock of the previous licensee had still been lying in the said premises till 11.04.2005, although an authorized departmental official should have taken over the stock from his possession immediately after 31.03.2005.
No physical verification had been made.
In effect and substance, he was yet to start his business.
As regards the purported inspection report whereupon the learned Additional Solicitor General laid great emphasis, the High Court opined Nothing has been stated by the appellants at any stage whether the records of previous licensee was surrendered to authority at the expiry of period of licences and whether stock position tallied with the register.
Some stock was released in his favour on 08.04.2005.
It should have been tallied with the stock and issue Registers also.
of the stock recovered and seized had been checked it would have been established that recovered stock had been lifted by the previous licensee from a Brewery Distillery under the permit granted by the Department.
The High Court on appreciation of the entire evidence had made terse companyments in regard to the companyduct of the said Inspector.
The Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment has upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
He took delivery of some IMFL products also.
Licences were granted to him.
The categorical admission made by them that the seized stock was forming the balance stock held under their licence and they had number delivered possession of the room to Respondent has been accepted by the High Court.
He purportedly has shown in his report that numberstock of liquor was available.
The Division Bench itself companypared the plans of both M s Rampal Rajkishan and Respondent.
It was numbericed that the plan was submitted by Respondent before he started his business.
The findings of the High Court are based on two affidavits, one affirmed by Rampal on behalf of the firm M s Rampal Rajkishan and another by Rajkishan.
He did number issue any declaration in terms of Rule 22 referred to hereinbefore.
Indisputably, the plans submitted by Rampal Rajkishan and Respondent were identical.
An Excise Inspector companyducted a purported inspection of the wholesale and retails godown of Rampal Rajkishan on expiry of the period of licence.
The said certificate issued by him in regard to the purported verification of the stock held by the erstwhile licensee as on 31.03.2005 is also seriously open to question.
Having regard to the materials brought on records, the Board of Revenue, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench satisfied themselves that Respondent did number receive vacant possession of that part of the premises from which IMFL and Beer bottles without hologram and MRP tags were recovered.
Manoj Ali that the place of recovery of the illicit liquor was a part of the Godown sanctioned to him and it is number disputed even that the entries of the stock recovered were number found in his stock Register.
It was held From the companyparison of three site plans Schedule A, B and C, they leave numberround of doubt that IMFL and beer bottles without hologram and MRP was recovered from that pat of the plan submitted by the respondent companytractor for approval which was formerly approved as retail godown of IMFL and beer for the period from 17.6.2004 to 31.3.2005.
The said letter was number responded to by the District Excise Officer until after decision of the Board of Revenue on 06.07.2005.
4566,4568 4567 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP Civil Nos.13240, 13329 13729 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
He had been given a permanent licence only on 27.04.2005.
Before companymencement of his business in terms of the said licences, he submitted the same plan of the premises for carrying out his business.
The Commissioner of Excise and the State are in appeal before us.
The Chowkidar has also categorically stated that his employer did number hand over possession of the entire premises to Respondent.
The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Excise asking him to pass a justified judgment keeping in view the observations made therein and after probing all the facts and records in respect of the case and after giving sufficient opportunity of adduction of evidence to the licensee.
The writ petitions preferred by the department as well as the companytractor would stand dismissed.
If it had been checked the position would have become clear whether the stock had been obtained by the previous licensee under a permit or number or whether it was entered in the stock and issue Registers or number.
A Division Bench of the High Court in an intra court appeal modified the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding the judgment of the Board of Revenue should have been upheld in its entirety and dismiss the writ petitions filed by both the companytractor as also by the Department, directing In the result, the order of the learned single Judge is modified to the extent that quashing of the orders of the Excise Commissioner dated 30.5.2005 and 28.6.2005 would stand but subject to enquiry followed by a fresh order to be passed by the Excise Commissioner in accordance with law as directed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 6.7.2005.
They were seized.
The said licensee submitted a plan of the premises to be used as a wholesale godown.
A show cause numberice had been issued on the premise that the subject matter of seizure was the stock owned and possessed by Respondent.
It on the said enquiry it had been found that it was the stock left by the previous licensee under the permit and it is entered in his stock register and issue register the recovered stock remained lying from 1.4.2005 to 11.4.2005 to accomplish certain ulterior motive because of carelessness of the Department Officers and in order to avoid to pay the Revenue by the previous licensee, to the extent that the posted companycerned Inspector did number inspect the Godown during this period even though it was responsibility of the Inspector.
He replied to the said show cause numberice on 28.05.2005 raising similar companytentions.
On the premise that the room in question was in possession of Respondent herein, a criminal proceeding was initiated against him.
The High Court furthermore has accepted the affidavit of Naresh Kumar, who was appointed as a watchman on behalf of the previous licensee.
In the meanwhile, a purported raid was companyducted in the premises.
Certain facts are number disputed.
Simply on receipt of the companynter it passed the order to cancel the license on the basis of summary proceeding which is number just.
Manoj Ali An appeal thereagainst preferred by him before the Board of Revenue, however, was allowed, opining When the licensee has the case that if batch No.
When clear and particular statement has been made by the licensee in his statement it was required to companyduct thorough enquiry for even departmental action under the provisions of the Act which was number done by the Subordinate Court.
He proposed to occupy the same premises which had been taken on rent by the erstwhile licensee.
Respondent was found to be the highest bidder.
The raid in the premises companyducted on 11.04.2005.
Indisputably, he had been carrying on his business under valid licences granted in his favour.
Before the High Court, however, Appellants had taken a different stand.
The Department of Excise Bikaner falsely proceeded against me in order to suppress its fault, as the remaining stock of foreign liquor and beer of Ex companytractor should have been under rule taken possession of at 11.00 P.M. on 31.3.2005.
Both the Commissioner of Excise and Respondent preferred writ petitions before the High Court questioning the legality of the said order.
A permanent licence, however, was granted on 27.04.2005.
In case in checking such entries had number been found was number the liquor supplied to the previous licensee only that the charge of keeping illicit liquor companyld have been established against the existing licensee.
Four Crores by way of security.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
A large number of bottles of IMFL liquor were found in one of the rooms in the said tenanted premises, which were being used by him for his retail business.
13157 of 2006 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
It came to an end on 31.03.2005.
Thus, both the facts have number been denied by Non Applicant Sh.
