Nardeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.4721 of 2026 Decided on: 07.04.2026
_________________________________________________________________ Nardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents
_________________________________________________________________ Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶3

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶4

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶5

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, nature of the impugned order and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to this writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard.

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶8

2 -

¶9

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily

¶10

feeling aggrieved against an order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Excise) Himachal Pradesh on 17.12.2025.

¶11

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶12

3(i) A notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.07.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Kangra at Dharamshala, with demand of Rs.8,94,647/- on account of pending license fee for the month of June 2025 in respect of Unit No.40 being run by the petitioner.

¶13

Petitioner was operating L-14 vend, situated at Tihri Road, Amb Pathiar. Citing very low sales at the aforesaid location, petitioner requested for shifting of the vend to Amb Pathiar Chowk. Respondent-Department approved the shifting. However, apprehending law and order problem, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, on 19.05.2025, suspended operation of the vend indefinitely with immediate effect.

¶14

3(ii) Petitioner instituted CWP No. 8833 of 2025 and Cr.MMO No. 504 of 2025 before this Court against the

¶15

3 -

¶16

suspension of operation of his vend. Vide order dated 10.09.2025, passed in Cr.MMO No.504 of 2025, the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jawalamukhi, was set aside. Petitioner claimed loss of revenue during intervening period 19.05.2025 to 19.09.2025, allegedly on account of wrong closure of his vend and on account of suffering financial losses therefrom.

¶17

3(iii) The Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, District Kangra, on account of short payment of license fees for the month of June 2025 in respect of Unit No.40 comprising L-14, as one of the vends under the Unit, raised a demand of Rs.8,94,647/- under notice issued to the petitioner on 02.07.2025.

¶18

3(iv) Petitioner felt aggrieved against the aforesaid notice and preferred appeal under Section 68(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (The Act in short) before the Financial Commissioner (Excise) Himachal Pradesh. The provision reads as under: -

¶19

“68. Appeal.-

¶20

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by any Excise Officer under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of communication of such order,

¶21

4 -

¶22

appeal to the Collector in the manner prescribed.

¶23

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector, under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the communication of such order, appeal to the Financial Commissioner”

¶24

The Financial Commissioner (Excise) dismissed the appeal on 17.12.2025, hence, the grievance.

¶25

4. The Financial Commissioner (Excise), Himachal Pradesh, has drawn correct conclusion that in terms of Section 68(1) of the Act, remedy of appeal is available against any order passed by an Excise Officer, in the first instance before the Collector of the concerned zone and against the order passed the Collector of the concerned zone, remedy of second appeal is available before the Financial Commissioner (Excise) under Section 68 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner (Excise) was justified in observing that petitioner had directly approached the Financial Commissioner (Excise) without exhausting the remedy available under Section 68(1) of the Act. However, despite making this observation, the Financial Commissioner (Excise) thereafter, chose to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and held against him vide impugned order dated 17.12.2025. Such approach was erroneous. By taking

¶26

5 -

¶27

recourse to this approach the petitioner has lost his right of having a reasoned order on the first appeal available to him under Section 68(1) of the Act.

¶28

Furthermore, the petitioner’s appeal in fact was

¶29

not even competent as it was only an appeal against the notice issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, District Kangra. The remedy under Section 68 is available only against an order of an Excise Officer. In the instant case, there was no order against the petitioner by any Excise Officer.

¶30

In view of above, the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Excise), Himachal Pradesh, is set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 68(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 before the Financial Commissioner (Excise) against notice dated 02.07.2025 is held to be not maintainable. To alley the apprehension of the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to him, submitted that petitioner’s vend shall not be seized till the decision of the appeal. Needless to clarify that the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy

¶31