CW9416/2006 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9416/2006 M/s. Winsome Breweries Limited and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 01.12.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Kamlakar Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Achintya Kaushik, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by M/s Winsome Breweries Limited assailing notice dated 24.08.2006 of respondent No.4 District Excise Officer (Recovery) Alwar. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that straightaway notice of recovery has been served upon petitioner. Originally demand was made for a sum of Rs.1,14,00,000/-. Though, some part of that was recovered by way of adjustment from advance permit amount, respondents are now seeking to recover amount of sixty nine lac and odd, which is wholly illegal. It is further contended that no reason whatsoever has been given as to on what account this recovery has been made. Petitioner submitted representation to the Excise Commissioner who called for comments of District Excise Officer, Alwar. District Excise Officer has given vague and incomplete reasons in support of CW9416/2006 // 2 // his action while sending reply to Excise Commissioner on 14.06.2000. In reply to writ petition also respondents have not come out with definite plea and have merely stated that notice was based on some audit report and report of committee but no such audit report or committee report has been produced on record. Learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition and submitted that writ petition cannot be entertained directly against notice and petitioner has remedy of appeal and that respondents are fully justified in seeking to recover said amount from petitioner. As it is, this matter is pending consideration before this court for last four years and by order of this court dated 05.12.2006, respondents have been restrained from making further recovery. Notice that has been served upon petitioner dated 24.08.2006 and order dated 07.09.2006 by which earlier certain amount of petitioner deposited by way of advance permit fee has been adjusted, do not indicate reasons why recovery in question is being made from petitioner. Even in letter sent by District Excise Officer to Excise Commissioner, also he has not given any detailed or conveniencing reasons to know as to for what reason recovery was actually be made. In the facts of case, I deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition requiring petitioner to submit a representation in response to that CW9416/2006 // 3 // notice to District Excise Officer and District Excise Officer after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, may pass speaking order giving reasons as to in what manner recovery is justified. If matter is decided against petitioner, it will have remedy of filing appeal against same in accordance with law. The demand notice is ordered to be treated as simple notice and no further recovery shall be made pursuant to said notice by District Excise Officer till final order pursuant to this judgment is passed by him. Petitioner may submit his representation within one month and same shall be decided within two months from date of its making. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//