9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to excise duty demand on the basis of legality and limitation. 2. Liability of legal representatives for arrears of excise duty. 3. Enforcement of demand against assets of deceased licensee. 4. Validity of demands made prior to three months from December 1974. Analysis: The petitioner's wife was a licensee for manufacturing safety matches and paid excise duty at a certain rate, which was later increased. The petitioner challenged the demand for differential tax, claiming it was illegal and barred by limitation. Similar demands were challenged in court previously, with demands made before three months from December 1974 being deemed invalid. After the licensee's death, the respondent sought to enforce the demand against the petitioner, who is one of the legal representatives. The petitioner argued that he did not succeed to the estate of the deceased, therefore, he should not be held liable for the arrears of excise duty. The petitioner contended that the demand was barred by limitation and, as he did not inherit the estate of the deceased licensee, he should not be held responsible for the excise duty arrears. The respondents argued that they were entitled to enforce the demand against the assets of the deceased licensee, subject to proof of the estate's position with the petitioner. However, the court found that the demands were indeed barred by limitation, as per a previous decision by a Division Bench of the court. As the demands were made beyond the specified period, they were not valid. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, issuing a writ of mandamus to prevent the enforcement of the demand against the petitioner or his assets. The court held that the petitioner was not liable for any short levy or differential duty from the deceased licensee's business activities. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
