Quashed

N.Sekar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC2 Feb 2021WP/26231/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an excise order imposing penalty without notice, claiming violation of Natural Justice and withholding caution deposit refund. Court quashed the order and remitted case for fresh proceedings with hearing. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.01.2008 quashed; case remitted to 1st respondent for fresh order and hearing within 3 months; caution deposit refund directed upon hearing.

N.Sekar Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.26231 of 2010

and

M.P.No.2 of 2010

N.Sekar, S/o.P.Natarajan

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise),

¶12

Erode, Erode District.

¶13

2.The Divisional Excise Officer, Erode. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Na Ka 72193/07J3 and quash the same and consequently by considering the representation of the petitioner herein dated 18.08.2009, direct the respondents herein to refund the caution deposit amount to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.N.Inbanathan

¶17

Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.01.2008, on the ground that the said order has been passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice in as much as neither the notice was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner was heard before the said order was passed.

¶20

It is further submitted that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as caution deposit when he obtained the license for running a IMFL Shop (Retail Imported Liquor Shop) with respondents. It is stated that instead of refunding the amount, the 1^st respondent has passed the impugned order and imposed penalty, since the petitioner sent representations for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the petitioner as caution deposit.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed in terms of prevailing G.Os and since the petitioner failed to maintain the required stock, he was subjected to penalty of Rs.2,27,840/-.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶24

It is noticed that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice in as much as no notice was issued to the petitioner to appropriate the amount paid by the petitioner towards caution deposit towards the alleged penalty payable by the petitioner.

¶25

Since there is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice, the impugned order dated 29.01.2008 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the 1^st respondent to pass a fresh order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent which stands quashed by this order shall be treated as notice.

¶26

On such reply/representation being filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with in a period of 3 months as indicated above.

¶27

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

//True Copy//

arb

1.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Erode, Erode District.

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

2.The Divisional Excise Officer, Erode.

¶34

+1 cc to M/s.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate Sr.No. 5318 +1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No. 6078

¶35

W.P.No.26231 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2010

¶36

SR.-I(CO) RMP(04/03/2021)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Sekar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sekar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Texcity Software Parks Vs Principal Commissioner of

V.Lakshmi, Vs The Chief Secretary

Kalpathi S Aghoram Vs The Commissioner

Sudhir Crane Services Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/s.United Freight Carriers Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Kksk Leather Processors Vs the Customs Excise and Service