Allowed¶32

Birendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Excise and Prohibition Dept

Excise – Refund

Jharkhand HC11 May 2026WPC/1552/2020

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No.1552 of 2020, Birendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & others, decided 11.05.2026 by Ananda Sen, J., High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Keywords: refund of Excise Transport Duty (ETD) and Excise Duty (ED); non-supply of country liquor against prescribed quota; non-supply admitted by State; unjust enrichment by State; rejection of non-intimation (10th of month) defence; retail liquor licensee; Palamu; refund directed within three weeks; costs of Rs.10,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the unutilized Excise Transport Duty (ETD) of Rs.20,76,138.27 and Excise Duty (ED) of Rs.3,66,368.00 recovered for October and November 2019, directed to be paid within three weeks; writ petition allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the petitioner. ¶32

Birendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Excise and Prohibition Dept — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:14547

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1552 of 2020

¶3

Birendra Yadav, son of Suresh Yadav, resident of Village & P.O. Navdiha, P.S. Navdiha Bazar, District Palamu, Jharkhand.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O.-G.P.O., District Ranchi.

¶7

The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O.-G.P.O., District Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. Palamu, District Palamu.

¶9

The Superintendent of Excise, P.O. & P.S. Palamu, District Palamu.

¶10

The Jharkhand State Beverage Corporation Limited, Ground Floor, Utpad Bhawan, Near Naveen Police Kendra, Kanke Road, P.S. Gonda, P.O.-G.P.O., District Ranchi, through its Managing Director.

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶13

------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate

¶14

------

¶15

10/ 11.05.2026

¶16

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

¶17

the following reliefs:-

¶18

"(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the unutilized Excise Transport Duty (ETD) and Excise Duty (ED) realized for the months of October and November, 2019 amounting to Rs.20,76,138.27 and Rs.3,66,368.00 respectively, on account of failure of the respondents to ensure supply of Country liquor, as per the prescribed quota, for which ETD and ED had been recovered from the petitioner;

¶19

¶20

2026:JHHC:14547

¶21

(ii) To hold and declare that if the respondents under the rules make it obligatory to deposit minimum Excise Revenue in advance on the basis of the quota of liquor which has been prescribed, the respondents have a corresponding obligation to ensure supply of liquor, failing which the respondents are bound to refund the Excise revenue viz ETD and ED recovered from the petitioner."

¶22

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶23

3. The petitioner is a retail liquor licensee. His grievance is that the respondents have failed to supply the Country liquor for two months i.e. October and November, 2019, in terms with the prescribed quota. He accordingly prays to refund the amount of Excise Transport Duty (ETD) and Excise Duty (ED), which have been recovered from the petitioner, for the aforesaid period.

¶24

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are not refunding the amount of ETD and ED, recovered from him, in spite of admitting the fact of non-supply of the liquor, for these two months, which is evident from the averments made in the Counter Affidavit itself.

¶25

5. The defence of the respondents is that the petitioner did not inform about the fact of non-supply on 10^th day of every month.

¶26

6. The aforesaid plea of the respondent - State is absolutely not acceptable. When admittedly, the State has not supplied the material, they cannot take the plea that the petitioner

¶27

¶28

2026:JHHC:14547

¶29

has not informed them about such non-supply. Be it noted that the fact of not supplying the material is admitted by the State.

¶30

7. The fact of non-supply of material once admitted by the State, nothing can come in the way of the State to refund the amount to the petitioner. Withholding the same will amount to unjust enrichment, which should not be allowed, that too, at the behest of the State.

¶31

8. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, within three weeks.

¶32

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed , with the cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid to the petitioner.

¶33

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶34

11th May, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

¶35

Uploaded on 16.05.2026

¶36

Birendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Excise and Prohibition Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Excise and Prohibition Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Gurmeet Kaur

Dinesh Hazam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarwari Khatun Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sucheta Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand Theough Its Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

Tajmul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Engineering and Body Building Co. Pvt. Ltd. through Krishna Bhalotia Vs State of Jharkhand