Allowed

United Spirits Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2021CW/3343/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed multiple writ petitions filed by United Spirits Limited. Following a prior order in M/s Shree Mahamaya Liquor Industries, the court quashed impugned orders and directed respondents to impose compounding fees capped at Rs. 5,000/- under Section 58(c) of the Excise Act of 1950.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; respondents directed to impose compounding fee up to Rs. 5,000/- under Section 58(c) of the Act of 1950; stay petitions disposed of.

United Spirits Limited Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3355/2020

¶3

United Spirits Limited

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

----Respondent Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3292/2020

¶8

United Spirits Limited

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3325/2020

¶14

United Spirits Limited

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3327/2020 United Spirits Limited

¶20

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondent (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3335/2020 United Spirits Limited

¶21

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶22

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondent (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3343/2020 United Spirits Limited ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondent

¶23

[CW-3355/2020]

¶24

(2 of 4)

¶25

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3354/2020

¶26

United Spirits Limited

¶27

----Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶30

----Respondent

¶31

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4392/2020

¶32

United Spirits Limited

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶36

----Respondent

¶37

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Mr. Girish Sankhla

¶38

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶39

Order

¶40

16/11/2021

¶41

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.

¶42

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in M/s Shree Mahamaya Liquor Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17772/2019 and other connect petitions) on 15.11.2021, relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶43

“19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the

¶44

[CW-3355/2020]

¶45

(3 of 4)

¶46

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.

¶47

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. 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.

¶48

22. This Court has taken note of the submission made 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.

¶49

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,

¶50

[CW-3355/2020]

¶51

(4 of 4)

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶55

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petitions are allowed in the same terms 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. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶56

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶57

C3-C10 Zeeshan

United Spirits Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Spirits 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

Bora Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushila Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Hariya Devi Vs Smt. Parmeshwari

Bhagat Siangh Shikshan Avum Jankalyan Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandresh Kumar Maheshwari Vs the State of Rajasthan