9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 997 his shop remain closed and no business was transacted by him. 2. It was further pleaded that in pursuance to the application filed by him, he was permitted to shift his premises from Link Road to Bus Stand, Jammu subject to the condition that the petitioner will clear all the outstanding i.e Licence Fee for the years 1995-96 to 1997-98; that being aggrieved of this condition, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing OWP No. 298/1997, wherein at the interim stage, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs with the Excise Commissioner for the present and execute an undertaking to his satisfaction that in case he fails in the writ petition and in case the litigation pending on the raising of the Licence Fee goes in favour of the Revenue, he would deposit the remaining amount found due within six months after the outcome of the subject matter; that the said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 26.02.2002 with a direction that the petitioner would prefer a representation with the respondents seeking relief from the Excise Commissioner in respect of the contention raised by him, however, it was alleged that the representation which had alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y paid the whole amount of interest; that assuming but not admitting the petitioner was required to pay Licence Fee from 1995 to 1997 during the period his shop remain closed, as such, the Govt. Order No. 124-F of 1998 dated 07.04.1998 is not applicable to the petitioner's case as he had deposited entire amount on account of Licence Fee for the period from 1995 to 1998 recoverable in the maximum 36 installments beginning from April, 1998 onwards and Clause-iv of the order clearly shows that no interest shall be levied from the date of stay to 31.03.1998; that the petitioner had obtained the stay order and his case was clearly governed by the order and the stay order had been extended upto 18.03.2002 and thereafter he paid the whole amount to the respondents. It was finally prayed that the writ of certiorari be issued quashing Notice of Demand issued under No. 1251-53/CRS dated 17.03.2003 and writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to charge interest from the petitioner from 01.04.1995 on the principal amount which stands already deposited. 6. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed objections asserting therein that as per the rules, licence fee of the shop in the area had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claim the licence fee for the aforesaid years. 8. It was further pleaded that under the similar set of circumstances similarly situated licensee of M/S Kundal Brothers Wine Shop New Plot, Jammu, could not pay the hiked licence fee and thus its shop remained closed for the three financial years i.e 1995 to 1998 and it was only thereafter the licence was renewed and the licensee was allowed to transact his business in liquor; that the respondents accordingly worked out the liability of the licensee on account of licence fee to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lacs i.e @ Rs. 5.00 lacs per annum. On representation, the matter was considered by the then Excise Commissioner, who after referring to the J&K Liquor Licence and Sales Rules, 1984 opined that since there was no renewal of licence from the year 1995 till 1997, the licence stood determined on account of non renewal, as such, there was no question of raising any demand on account of licence fee from M/S Kundal Brothers Wine Shop; that on a reference, the Finance Department vide its communication No. ET-E/11/98 dated 8th September, 2004 expressed its agreement with the opinion expressed by the Excise Commissioner as well as the General A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not taken the advantage of the Government Policy granting amnesty in terms of Govt. Order No. 124-F of 1998 dated 07.04.1998, as on one hand, it had taken a plea that a policy was not applicable to its case being a non-licensee and now taking a u-turn and seeking benefits of the order so as to absolve it from the penal consequences, for making late payment of the licence fee. He has further argued that under the principles of the law of taxation, once the tax liability is admitted as in the case of the petitioner who had paid the licence fee, the natural consequence is of subjecting the same to the penal interest for the liability not being paid in admitted time limit. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 12. It is not disputable that the petitioner's business in liquor remained closed for three financial years at Link Road, Jammu and that the licence was also not renewed after March, 1995, which as per Rule 27 stood determined in absence of any renewal on expiry of the financial years. It is not the respondents case that the licence gets automatically renewed without its cancellation or suspension, therefore, for the period of three financial years from 1995-1998, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
