1970 (9) TMI 35 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of sums due to Government - May - Connotation of - Writ of Mandamus - Attachment and sale of property

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act regarding recovery of sums due to the Government.
2. Application of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in relation to attachment and sale of properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to prevent the sale of properties other than excisable goods and to sell detained goods first. The court examined the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the officer empowered to recover dues has discretion in choosing the method of recovery. The court held that the officer may deduct the amount from money owed by the person or recover it by attaching and selling excisable goods. The court ruled that if the goods are not saleable, the officer can opt for other methods of recovery. The court concluded that the discretionary use of methods under Section 11 does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

2. Application of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act:
The petitioner argued that the Collector could not attach and sell properties as per Annexure R.1 since the Land Revenue Act provisions were deleted by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court clarified that the U.P. Act only applies in specific areas, and in areas where it does not apply, the Land Revenue Act provisions remain valid. The court examined the location of the properties mentioned in Annexure R.1 and determined that they were in an area not covered by the U.P. Act. Therefore, the court held that the Collector had not erred in issuing the attachment and sale order for the properties listed in Annexure R.1.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the grounds raised by the petitioner lacked merit. The court upheld the discretionary powers of the officer under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act and clarified the application of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in property attachment cases. The judgment emphasized the discretionary nature of recovery methods and the specific application of laws based on geographical areas.