2017 (3) TMI 484 - HC - Indian Laws

Liquor shop - auction - requirement of liquor shop to remain closed on days as specified - petitioner contends that in spite of the fact that the shop was closed, State/respondent have not appropriated the Basic Licence Fee and Annual Licence Fee and have issued a SCN directing the petitioner to pay dues - Held that - the respondents are certainly entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner, in case the petitioner has not cleared the dues. However, the dues in respect of Simhastha festival which has already been waived will be deducted from the total outstanding dues - In case the petitioner deposited total outstanding dues within one week, the respondents will not take any coercive action against the petitioner, failing which the respondents shall be free to take action against the petitioner keeping in view the notification dated 05/02/2016 and u/s 31 of M. P. Excise Act. As the respondents have only issued show cause notices, the present petition is certainly a premature petition - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner aggrieved by closure order for liquor shop during Simhastha festival, contention of exclusion from list of closed shops, dispute over payment of excise duty and licence fees, issuance of show cause notices, challenge against auction notice, waiver of fees for Simhastha period, non-clearance of dues by petitioner, entitlement for liquor supply, legality of show cause notices, maintainability of writ petition against show cause notices alone.

Analysis:
The petitioner, holding a liquor license, challenged closure orders during Simhastha festival, alleging exclusion from the list of closed shops. Dispute arose over payment of excise duty and licence fees, with the petitioner contending non-appropriation of fees despite closure. The petitioner's plea for restoration of supply was based on delayed decision by Excise Commissioner. Respondents argued for dues clearance as per notification, issuing show cause notices for non-payment. The Court found petitioner not entitled to supply due to unpaid dues, allowing adjustment for waived fees and directing clearance of outstanding dues for supply restoration.

The respondents withdrew the show cause notice and issued fresh ones, leading to a separate writ petition challenging the notices. The Court emphasized the recovery right of respondents for unpaid dues, with waived fees deducted from total outstanding amount. The judgment highlighted the non-maintainability of a writ petition solely against show cause notices, citing a Supreme Court ruling on premature petitions against such notices. The Court granted time for dues clearance, reserving the right for respondents to take action if dues remained unpaid, in accordance with statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of both writ petitions, emphasizing the premature nature of the petition against show cause notices alone. The judgment underscored the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the need for a final adverse order to establish a cause of action. The Court granted breathing time for dues clearance, allowing respondents to take appropriate action if dues were not cleared, in line with legal provisions.