This civil writ petition challenged a Tax Board order in excise confiscation proceedings. The petitioners argued perversity regarding Section 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The court declined to reappreciate evidence and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JP:20488-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2864/2022
----Petitioners
Versus
M/s Shri Salasar Transport Company, Plot No. 3629, Gali No. 8, Baba P. Sigh, Ngr C/o A-26, Brahma Housing, Jaipur-302001 Through Sh. Pankaj Parikh S/o Sh. Sanwarlal Parikh, R/o 193, Anand Vihar, D- Machanda, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Vivek Dangi Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
02/09/2023
Heard on admission.
This petition is directed against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tax Board’) being an Appellant Authority under Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 in the matter of confiscation proceeding.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the learned Tax Board allowed the appeal of the owner of the vehicle contrary to the spirit of provision contained in Section 54A of The Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1950’). He would submit that once a vehicle is found involved in commission of offence like illegal transportation of liquor, the burden lies on the owner to satisfy that he had no reason to believe that such offence was being committed and he had exercised due care in the prevention of the commission of certain offence. The owner of the
(2 of 2)
[2023:RJ-JP:20488-DB]
[CW-2864/2022]
vehicle failed to discharge his burden, therefore, the order passed by the Tax Board suffers from gross perversity.
We have gone through the order under challenge. The Tax Board has taken into consideration the provisions contained in Section 54A of the Act of 1950. The factual premise, which was taken into consideration was that there is no material establishing connection between the owner of the vehicle and the persons who are alleged to be involved in the illegal transportation of liquor. The order further records that, even though, the driver and conductor of the vehicle were enquired and the statements were recorded, there is nothing in those statements that they were involved in illegal transportation of liquor on the direction of the owner. The Tax Board has also taken into consideration the contents of FIR in which two persons are said to have accepted Rs.30,000/- from Gokul Singh. Further, the container was facilitated with lock facility. There is no material found to draw inference that the owner of the vehicle had a reason to believe that the driver and/ or conductor are likely to be involved in commission of offence. On such considerations, the Appellate Authority has passed an order setting aside the order of confiscation.
In our considered view, the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Authority is based on appreciation of facts on record. In certiorari jurisdiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the order, by assuming to ourselves, the role of an Appellate Authority by re-appreciating the evidence on record.
Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
SANJAY KUMAWAT-2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the order setting aside vehicle confiscation is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner, Department Of Excise, Government Of Rajasthan
M/s Shri Salasar Transport Company
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
