Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEEPAK GARG versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Deepak Garg v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 1777 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20688 (7 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.22

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.1777 OF 2006

Deepak Garg.        ....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others.     ...Respondents

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

For the Excise year 2002-03 petitioner has been allotted a country liquor shop situated at Nai Basti, Lallapura, Meerut by means of lottery under the new Excise policy. However, it appears that the without entering into the contract, petitioner has been allowed to run the shop on daily basis. Petitioner run the shop on daily basis from 20.04.2002 to 21.07.2002. Petitioner vide letter dated 21.07.2002 refused to run the shop and, therefore, the Excise Officer has not allowed the petitioner to run the shop w.e.f. 22.07.2002. Thereafter, vide notice dated 04.08.2004 District Excise Officer, Meerut asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.17,40,867/- towards balance licence fee for the entire excise year 2002-03. Petitioner disputed the aforesaid demand on the ground that the petitioner was never issued permanent licence for the excise year 2002-03. Petitioner filed appeal before the Excise Commissioner. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Administration) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the demand. The aforesaid appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2006. Petitioner filed revision before the State Government alongwith waiver application, which are still pending. During the pendency of the appeal District Excise Officer has issued notice dated 15.11.2006 asking the petitioner to deposit the amount. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demand is patently illegal in view of the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31 of 2006, Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 06.11.2006. He submitted that the State Government may be directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and till the disposal of the appeal realization of the demand be stayed.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the State Government to dispose of the revision of the petitioner, filed on 29.11.2006 expeditiously preferably within a period of two months and till the disposal of the revision, impugned demand shall remain stayed.

Dt.07.12.2006

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.