IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 17192 of 2007 SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05 05.08.2008 The petitioner was a retail licensee in country liquor. Being a retail licensee, he had inter alia, two obligations, firstly, an obligation to lift on payment of State excise duty a minimum quantity of country liquor per month and secondly to pay a monthly licence fee, which is in case of the petitioner Rs. 22,000/- per month. On or about July/August 2003, the petitioner failed to lift the minimum monthly quota of country liquor, as he was obliged to do. His licence was suspended in September, and ultimately, it was cancelled in February 2004. After cancellation of the licence, the petitioner has been served with a notice of demand issued under the provisions of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,10,000/-. Petitioner challenged this demand on the ground that this demand pertained to excise duty payable on lifted country liquor. By interim order, the proceedings for realization of payment were, thus, stayed. 2 State has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 11 and 12, it is specifically stated that petitioner was under obligation to pay a monthly licence fee of Rs. 22,000 per month. He paid licence fee up to August 2003 and from September 2003 to February 2004. When the licence was cancelled, he did not deposit the licence fee. Licence fee being Rs. 22,000/- per month for the five months, it comes to Rs. 1,10,000/-. This is what is being demanded. No demand is being made in respect of excise duty on unlifted quotas. In my view, having considered the matter, the writ petition merits no consideration. The demand is not with regard to excise duty in respect of unlifted minimum quota of country liquor. If it were so, then, in view of the settled decisions of the Apex Court in this regard and the recent circular issued by the Commissioner State Excise dated 30.11.2007, the same could not be demanded. The case has been simply put by the State with reference to condition no. 14 of the sale notification and the obligation to pay licence fee. Therefore, 3 this Court finds that the demand is for the months for which monthly licence fee was not paid by the petitioner and that being so the demand is such cannot be assailed before this Court. However, the petitioner has remedy under the Public Demand Recovery Act itself to raise issue in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed and the interim order stand vacated. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)