IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6032 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10.04.2008 M/s Rairu Distilleries Ltd., Gwalior .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) M/s Rairu Distilleries Limited, Gwalior, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.3 herein), whereby penalty was imposed on the petitioner company, the illegal liquor found in the truck was confiscated and the vehicle was detained. The said order was passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company. A notice was issued and in response thereto, counsel for the petitioner company appeared and sought time to submit reply and argue the matter and thereafter, the impugned order of penalty was passed on 25.8.2006. Undisputedly, against the said order, the petitioner did not file any appeal, though the remedy of appeal has been CWP No. 6032 of 2008 -2- provided against the said order under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Haryana. However, the owner and driver of the vehicle filed appeal against the said order and their appeal has been dismissed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh (respondent No.2 herein) vide order dated 11.1.2007. Though the petitioner company did not file any appeal against the order of penalty dated 25.8.2006, but it filed a review application against the order dated 11.2.2007, passed in appeal filed by the owner and truck, taking the plea that it was not aware of the penalty proceedings, as no notice was issued to it. The said review application has been dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.12.2007. Hence, the instant petition has been filed, challenging the aforesaid three orders. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner company has not availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the order of penalty, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Haryana. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 10, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE