Allowed

M/S K.D. Sharma and Co. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2012CWP/13004/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while allowing a Writ Petition, remanded the matter regarding the refusal to renew the petitioner's L-1 licence to the Excise Commissioner. The refusal was due to outstanding tax dues, which the petitioner had shown willingness to clear via a demand draft.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting renewal was set aside; the matter remanded to the Excise Commissioner with directions to decide within three weeks of receipt of the tax deposit.

M/S K.D. Sharma and Co. Vs State of Punjab… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.13004 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.13004 of 2012

¶5

Date of decision: 29.8.2012

¶6

M/s K.D.Sharma and Co.

¶7

-----Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA

¶12

Present:Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶14

Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is to the order dated 1.6.2012, Annexure P.6, whereby renewal of L-1 licence of the petitioner has been declined for want of Punjab Value Added Tax Clearance Certificate (PVAT). Prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to renew the said licence.

¶15

Briefly, the facts, as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a partnership firm, holding L-1 wholesale licence for sale of IMFL since the year 1977-78. The licence of the petitioner for the year 2010-11 was renewed only after direction by this Court in CWP No.6862 of 2010. For the licensing period 201213, the petitioner applied for renewal vide application dated 23.1.2012. The application was not taken up for consideration inspite of deposit of ` 9 lacs on 24.3.2012. The petitioner filed CWP

¶16

CWP No.13004 of 2012

¶17

¶18

No.8418 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 7.5.2012 with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the legal notice of the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within two weeks from the date of the receipt of certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 1.6.2012, Annexure P.6 rejecting the renewal of the licence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 7.6.2012, Annexure P.9 alongwith a demand draft dated 6.6.2012 to clear the outstanding amount of ` 13,53,210/but till date no action has been taken on the said representation. Hence this petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-department had declined to renew the licence of the petitioner on the following two grounds:-

¶20

1. “The applicant has not submitted PVAT Tax clearance till date about which he was duly informed vide letter dated 9.4.2012 and letter dated 26.4.2012 by the office of AETC Roopnagar as per the direction of DETC Patiala Division, Patiala.

¶21

1. The petitioner licensee is registered under PVAT Act holding TIN 03941094666 and an amount of Rs.13,53,210/- is outstanding against the petitioner as per audit observations of the audit wing of AG Punjab.”

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had sought to deposit the outstanding amount of `13,53,210/- and had got demand draft prepared in favour of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ropar on 6.6.2012.

¶23

CWP No.13004 of 2012

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to document attached as part of Annexure P.8 in this regard. It was urged that the ground for declining renewal was unjustified in view of the aforesaid facts. On a query being put to learned State counsel to spell out the reasons for refusal to renew the licence, he admitted that non-payment of the aforesaid payment of ` 13,53,210/- and not obtaining clearance certificate from the Excise department regarding no dues were the two grounds for not renewing the licence.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

Since the petitioner has shown willingness by getting demand draft prepared on 6.6.2012, it is considered appropriate that the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 – Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab to reconsider the renewal of the licence in the light of the said development. Ordered accordingly. As a result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.6.2012, Annexure P.6 is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to deposit the amount within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Respondent No.2 shall decide the application for renewal filed by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of deposit of the amount.

¶28

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge

¶29

August 29, 2012 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge

M/S K.D. Sharma and Co. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S K.D. Sharma and Co. v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Jagir Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs Commandant and Anr.

Sat Narain Kanodia Vs State of Punjab (Cbi)

M/S Wadhawan Mill Store Vs Union of India and Ors.

Brinder Pal Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala