Allowed

Jagatjit Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2021CW/3198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench relied on the recent decision in M/s Shree Mahamaya Liquor Industries to dispose of multiple connected writ petitions challenging excessive compounding fees. The court allowed the petitions and quashed orders imposing fines beyond the statutory limit.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; quashing of impugned orders; direction to impose compounding fee up to Rs. 5,000 per case.

Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs State of Rajasthan — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 7)

¶2

[CW-18164/2019]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18164/2019

¶5

M/s. Globus Spirits Ltd., A Public Limited Company Incorporated And Registered In India Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At F-O, Gf, The Meera Corporate Suited, Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi And Its Distillery Unit Situated At Village Shyampur, P.o. Gunti, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan, Through Its Authorized Representative Tapan Kishore Pandey

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶10

The Excise Inspector, Circle Jhalawar, Dist. Jhalawar.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2693/2017

¶14

United Spirits Limited, A Company Incorporated And Registered In India Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At Ub Tower, 24 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore560001, Through Its General Manager, Sales And Authorized Signatory Mr. Akshay Rallan

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶18

The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶19

The District Excise Officer, Distillery, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2930/2017

¶22

United Spirits Limited, A Company Incorporated And Registered In India Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Officer At Ub Tower, 24 Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore560001, Through Its General Manager, Sales And Authorized Signatory Mr. Akshay Rallan.

----Petitioner

(2 of 7)

[CW-18164/2019]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶28

The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶29

The District Excise Officer, Distillery, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18142/2019

¶32

M/s. Globus Spirits Limited, A Public Limited Company Incorporated And Registered In India The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At F-O, Gf, The Meera Corporate Suites, Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi And Its Distillery Unit Situated At Village Shyampur, P.o.- Gunti, Tehsil - Behror, District- Alwar, Rajasthan, Through Its Authorized Representative Tapan Kishore Pandey.

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶36

The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶37

The District Excise Officer, Dholpur.

¶38

The Excise Inspector, Circle Badi, Dist. Dholpur.

¶39

----Respondents

¶40

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18409/2019

¶41

M/s Globus Spirits Ltd., A Public Limited Company Incorporated And Registered In India Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At F-O, Gf, The Meera Corporate Suites, Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi And Its Distillery Unit Situated At Village Shyampur, P.o.- Gunti, Tehsil- Behror, District- Alwar, Rajasthan, Through Its Authorized Representative Tapan Kishore Pandey.

¶42

----Petitioner

¶43

Versus

¶44

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶45

The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶46

The District Excise Officer, Sriganganagar.

¶47

The Excise Inspector, Circle Raisinhnagar Distt. Sriganganagar.

(3 of 7)

[CW-18164/2019]

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2673/2020

¶52

Globus Spirit Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At F-O, Ground Floor, The Mira Corporate Suites Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110065 Local Unit Village Shyampur Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Tapan Kishore Pandey S/o N.k. Pandey Aged About 61 Years, R/o D-147, Flat No. 303, Durga Apartment, Military Hospital, Bani Part, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶53

----Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajathan.

¶56

Office Of The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶57

----Respondents

¶58

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2743/2020

¶59

Globus Spirit Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At F-O, Ground Floor, The Mira Corporate Suites, Plot No. 1 And 2, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Raod, New Delhi-110065 Local Unit Village Shyampur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) Through Its Authorised Signatory, Mr.tapan Kishore Pandey S/o N.k. Pandey Aged About 61 Years R/o D-147, Flat No. 303, Durga Apartment, Military Hospital, Bani Part, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶60

----Petitioner

¶61

Versus

¶62

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶63

Office Of The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶64

----Respondents

¶65

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3198/2020

¶66

Jagatjit Industries Limited, A Company Incorporated And Registered In India Under The Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Registered Office At Jagatjit Nagar, District Kapurthala, Punjab-144802 And Its Distillery Unit Situated At Plot No. Sp 1- 3, Sotanala, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan Through Its Deputy General Manager - Legal And Authorized Signatory Mr. Anand Shri Kaushik.

----Petitioner

(4 of 7)

[CW-18164/2019]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶72

The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶73

The District Excise Officer, Bharatpur.

¶74

The District Excise Inspector, Circle Bharatpur Urban.

¶75

----Respondents

¶76

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi for Mr. Vikas Bali. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla.

¶77

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶78

Order

¶79

20/11/2021

¶80

SBCWP Nos. 2693/2017 & 2930/2017:-

¶81

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶82

De-tag S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2693/2017 & 2930/2017 from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18164/2019 and other connected bunch matters.

¶83

List after four weeks.

¶84

Interim order, if any, shall continue till next date.

¶85

SBCWP Nos. 18164/2019, 18164/2019, 18142/2019, 18409/2019, 2673/2020, 2743/2020 & 3198/2020:-

¶86

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶87

Counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court

¶88

(5 of 7)

¶89

[CW-18164/2019]

¶90

in M/s Shree Mahamaya Liquor Industries Vs. State of

¶91

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17772/2019 and other connect petitions, decided on 15.11.2021), relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-

¶92

“19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar including the previous order, which virtually remanded the matter back to the excise authorities, this Court is of the opinion that the only proceeding on record against the petitioners-companies is under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950 as mentioned in the notice.

¶93

20. Learned counsels for the petitioners limited their submissions to the point that the proceeding under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950 could have resulted into a maximum fine of Rs.5,000/-, if the person is found guilty of the offence, whereas in the present matters, the petitioners themselves opted for compounding of such offence under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950 and have been levied with fine in excess of Rs.5,000/-, which is unacceptable.

¶94

21. The ambit of Section 70 of the Act of 1950 is for the whole act, and thus, they could have easily imposed a fine exceeding Rs.5,000/-, if they were using the other provisions. But in this case, where the sole provision invoked by the respondents was Section 58(c), therefore, the respondents could not have travelled beyond Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950 and in any case, the compounding fee cannot exceed the fine prescribed by the penal section, and the same has to be within such limits.

¶95

(6 of 7)

¶96

[CW-18164/2019]

¶97

22. This Court has taken note of the submission made

¶98

pertaining to Section 70(2) of the Act of 1950 by learned counsels for the petitioners-companies, which clearly envisages that a person and his property shall be completely discharged, released and no further proceedings shall lie against them once the offence is compounded, and thus, even if the acceptance of the offence under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950 is taken at its face value and is compounded, then the petitioners cannot be subjected to any other proceeding as the same is barred by Section 70(2) of the Act of 1950 itself.

¶99

23. The arguments made by learned counsels for the respondents that Section 70 of the Act of 1950 has a large ambit is not denied and certainly Section 70 of the Act of 1950 has a large ambit of imposing cost, but when Section 70 read with Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950, in which, the proceedings have been exclusively maintained then the upper capping of Rs.5,000/- is writ large in the provision of law itself, and then, the application of Section 70 of the Act of 1950 has to be done as per the conjoint reading of Section 58(c) and Section 70 of the Act of 1950.

¶100

24. In view of the above discussion, the present petitions are allowed and while quashing the impugned orders, the respondents are directed to impose compounding fee upto Rs.5,000/- in each case in pursuance of the notice given under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950.

¶101

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶102

In light of aforequoted order, these writ petitions are also allowed in the same terms and while quashing the impugned

¶103

(7 of 7)

¶104

[CW-18164/2019]

¶105

orders, the respondents are directed to impose compounding fee upto Rs.5,000/- in each case in pursuance of the notice given under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶106

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶107

64-71-Sanjay/-

Jagatjit Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagatjit Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Sarawat and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Shushu @ Sushil Vs State

Narender Vs the State of Rajasthan

Globus Spirit Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Globus Spirit Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan