LexSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS versus NIRMAL KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 1 S.C.R. 916 STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS v. NIRMAL.KUMAR GUPTA (Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2013) JANUARY 08, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Bihar Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country/Spiced Country Liquor) Rules, 2004 - rr. 19, 20 and C 24 - Settlement of excise shops in favour of auction- purchaser - Default in payment of advance security - Despite the default, licence issued - In view of the default, demand for licence fee raised from the date of settlement till the date of issuance of licence - High Court held that default would D be deemed to be condoned as the licence was issued despite the default - Held: The purchaser failed to comply with r. 19 - The default cannot be deemed to be condoned in view of the nature of trade in question - As per r. 24, the purchaser is required to pay licence fee from the date of settlement - E Hence, the demand for licence fee is justified. Pursuant to sale notification, excise shops were settled in favour of the respondent on 5th July, 2006. The respondent was required to pay 1/4th of the annual licence fee as advance security money. He failed to do F so in time. He deposited the requisite amount in three instalments. Licence was issued on 5th July, 2006. Since the respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the licen.ce ie. delay in payment of advance deposit, a demand for licence fee was raised for the period G commencing 5th June, 2006 to 5th July, 2006. High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent holding that the default in payment of advance security amount would be deemed to have been condoned in view of the fact that despsite the default, licence was issued; and that the H 916 STATE OF BIHAR v. NIRMAL KUMAR GUPTA 917 respondent was liable to pay from the date of issuance A of licence and not from the date of settlement. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The respondent was required to pay 1/4th of the annual licence fee as advance security money but he failed to do so in time. He deposited the requisite amount in three instalments. Thus, the respondent failed B to comply with r. 19 of Bihar Excise (Settlement of Licences for Retail Sale of Country/Spiced Country C Liquor) Rules, 2004. [Para 19] [926-D-F] 2. Rule 20 of 2004 Rules clearly lays the postulate that if the advance security amount is not deposited in accordance with the time limit prescribed u/r. 19, the D settlement and the licence, if issued, shall stand cancelled and the deposited sum, if any, shall be forfeited to the Government. Thus, there is a distinction between settlement and issue of licence. [Para 14] [924-G] 3. The principle of condonation of default by way of E conduct cannot be attracted in the present case. On the touchstone of the nature of the trade, the role of the StatE1; the economic concept of the policy, limited attractability of Article 14 of the Constitution as regards the legislation or policy, the restriction inherent in the policy and the F duty of the court, there could not have been condonation of default. Such a concept is alien to the present nature of trade and a licencee cannot claim any benefit under the same, as the whole thing is governed by the command of the Rules. [Paras 21 and 31] [927-G; 931-A- G 8, D] Har Shandar and Ors. etc. v. ·The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. etc. AIR 1975 SC 1121: 1975 (3) SCR 254; Mis. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A Karnataka (1995) 1 SCC 574: 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 477 - followed. Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, Agarta/a and Ors. AIR 1972 SC 1863: 1973 B (1) SCR 533; Nashirwaretc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 360: 1975 (2) SCR 861 ; State of M.P. and Ors. etc. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. etc. AIR 1987 SC 251: 1987 (1) SCR 1; Mis. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1447: 2001 (2) SCR 630 ; State of M.P. and Ors. etc. etc. v. Nand/al Jaiswal and C Ors. etc. etc. AIR 1987 SC 251: 1987 (1) SCR 1; P.N. Krishna Lal and Ors. v. Govt. of Kera/a and Anr. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187: 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 526; Secretary to Govt., Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. K. Vinayagamurthy AIR 2002 SC 2968: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 683; State of Punjab and Anr. v. D Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and Anr. (2004) 11 SCC 26: 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 930 - reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.