9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judge, which reads as follows: The petitioner is a distillery, engaged in the manufacture of Indian-made-foreign liquor. There was some dispute between the petitioner and the Excise Department, regarding the method of computation of the wastage of Extra Neutral Alcohol, stored in different vats. The contention of the petitioner is that the contents of all the vats should be taken together for computing the percentage of the wastage, whereas the respondents maintain the view that the contents of each vat should be taken separately. Challenging the method of computation of wastage adopted by the respondents, the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing an O.P in 1975. That original petition was dismissed. The writ appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usted was ₹ 65,000/- and the same was adjusted also. So, the 1st respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Heard. It is not in dispute that some amounts were due to the State from the petitioner. A written demand was made as early as in April, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner has not made the payment in time. So, I feel that the State is entitled to get reasonable interest for the amount not paid by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own default. But, the claim of the petitioner that the amounts adjustable should have been adjusted as and when available, has to be upheld. The said claim has to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion raised. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The abkari dues due to the State is recoverable under the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act provides for recovery of interest also on the principal amount. That being so, we are of opinion that the parties are governed by Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act and not by Section 3 of the Interest Act. In any event, the demand from the appellant is for money belonging to the State, that is to the people of the State. The appellant had the use of the money due to the State who had been deprived of the money due to them for years. The appellant has to certainly compensate for the loss sustained by the State on account of delay in payment of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
