Disposed

Prakash Sukheja S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2025CW/662/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 instead of pursuing the writ petition, and directed that an appeal filed within 30 days shall be heard on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing petitioner to file appeal under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 within 30 days and deposit 25% of the amount.

Prakash Sukheja S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:9086]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 662/2025

¶4

Prakash Sukheja S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 2 G 13, R.k.puram, Anandpura @ Phoota Talab, Kota (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶9

District Excise Officer, D.c.m. Road, Aerodrum Circle, Chhatrapura, Kota (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepSingh
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶13

03/03/2025

¶14

By means of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made by the petitioner to the Recovery Notice/ Order dated 18.12.2023, passed by the District Excise Officer (Recovery), Kota, asking to deposit dues of annual security amount of Rs.74,68,753/- along with interest against the year 2023-24.

¶15

Counsel for petitioner submits that the liquor license issued in favour of petitioner was cancelled by the Department on 23.11.2023, hence, for the post period, petitioner cannot be held liable for any amount against annual security amount, hence,

[2025:RJ-JP:9086]

[CW-662/2025]

(2 of 2)

demand of Rs.74,68,753/- along with interest for the year 202324 is arbitrary and illegal.

¶20

During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner does not dispute that the order of recovery, passed by the District Excise Officer is appealable under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, subject to deposition of 25% of the demanded amount. 4. Counsel for petitioner admits that petitioner has directly preferred this writ petition, without availing the opportunity of filing an appeal, however, having instructions from the petitioner, counsel for petitioner is agreeable to approach before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Excise Commissioner, if the delay during this period is condoned and his appeal is allowed to be heard on merits.

¶21

In view of above, without going into merits/ demerits of the impugned recovery notice/ order dated 18.12.2023, petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative and statutory remedy of appeal thereagainst, as provided under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act,1950. It is hereby directed that in case, petitioner files an appeal within a period of 30 days from today and complies with the condition precedent, i.e. to deposit the 25% of the demanded recovery amount, his appeal be heard and considered on merits ignoring the delay.

¶22

Accordingly, instant writ petition is disposed in order to avail the alternative remedy available in law.

¶23

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶24

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶25

RONAK JAIMAN/5

Prakash Sukheja S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Sukheja S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Estate Officer Under Public Premises Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Monika Maheshwari D/O Om Prakash Maheshwari Vs the Managing Director (Technical)

Rohit Sharma S/O Babulal Sharma Vs Babulal Sharma S/O Sh. Badri Prasad Khati

Saurabh Aswani S/O Shri Jai Kishan @ Rajkumar Aswani Vs Jai Kishan Aswani S/O Late Shri Kewal Ram

Arjun Kumar Vishnoi S/O Shri Karnaram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Manoj Foods and Enterprises Vs the Secretary, Department of Local Bodies