G INTHE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH Petitioner Respondents AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. •^•S-l-^f2003 / Versus -t. p. 3. M/s Som Distilleries (P) Ltd., Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal-(M.P-), Through its Officer Incharge K.G.S.Chouban, B- 24, Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur-(C.G.) State of CMiattisgarh Through the Secretary Commercial Taxes & Excise Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur- (C.G.) The Excise Commissioner, Raipur - (C.G.) M/s Kedia Castle Delleon Industries Ltd., Kedia Nagar, Kumhari, Dist : Durg- (C.G.) ^ '<v'<&' P WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 sn^i^i ft-li'* 311^1 ^iti{1^ '^fi^t (^ TE? •<<]';iici<i, yal'M'is, faciiyy HIHCTI a>*41<<i ..^...^A^.71. ^ 200 'fsre^g' sn^t ^aiwgfsg 11.09.2003 Shri P.Diwakai', counsel fo Shri Saujay K. Agrawal, Shri Anand Tiwari, counse the petitioner. Dejputy Advdfcate General for the State. for the Caveator, preferr^d The petitioner has 226 & 227 of Constitution < 23.06.2003 passed by the Excise petitioner has been directed to m ofthe plaat aud machiuery to the tliis writ petition under Articles |>f India agamst the oider dated CoDimissioner, Raipur by which the ^ke the payineut ofdeduction. ofcost respoudent no.3. The petitioner's case is fhi for fhe year 2002-2004 beforc no.3- M/s Kedia Casfle Dellon ttie Chhattisgarh Coitutiy Spnt C.S.I. Licence, the outgouig licensee shaU purchase aU. iacludiag its vats, corkmg, capsi by fhe Valuation Comnuttee api for fhe purpose. The Ucensee bottles, fhe sealing inaterials ete licence at the rates appUcable to shaB be made to ttie outgoiag U.CC The petitioner was then setved by fhe Excise Comniissioner wh{ make fhe payment of plant aud *i't]!ri41-] •WRff'? fel<3 <fa-yi< ^? sifigq SII^T ft the petitioner was graated tender the tender was wifh respoudent Ltd, aad as per rule 13(1) of Rutes, 1995, ou the expuy of fhe shaU seU and fhe iucomiug ssuictioned warehouse plants iliag, machuT.es ete. at a price fixed by the Excise Conunissioner also purchase the liquor, empty in stock 011 fhe day of expiiy of the fhe oul^oing Ucensee. The payment withiu a inonth of such date. wbich Inliustries Uclensee Ihe pljointed sliiaU licdasee wifh a notice dated 10.07.2002 ^reby the petitioner was directed to pachiaery as per fhe cost shown by -E^l-&. XJ-HC-22 ^^ •*<nmef, w^ww, hwwy. SII^F^I Wi^h 3f^l s^+il^ •(-r^d l^^^t^ " wn?iT%i)rai i^^T' the respondent no.3. The claun. t higher side i.e. about Rs.70 lacs,| the claiin of respondent no.3 present uiarket value and found| thaa the clauned amount. The EJ. request of the petitioner on 20.07.] laachinery is to be valuated by fh{ 13(1) offhe Countiy Sprit Rules of petitioueis represeatatives name visit ofthe Valuation Comiaittee. is Annexure P-4 to fhe writ petiticjn 11.11,2003 sent a letter to (respoudent no.2) aad infonned petitioner of fhe dues of 1996-98 Rs. 10,56,610/- but with a decisi4i pertains to fhe then State ofM.Pj the claun of the petitioner. valuation ofplant and machiaeiy aiid valuation subnutted by the no.3. dn. td.e TAe The maiu grievauce of fhe plant and inachineiy and other iti per past practi.ee at the tune of petitioner as weU as the repres should have been inade party ia <til*ii<'i<il'< ^WvS^ 'fe'A <Ri«i< ^; sii^n an^ (>f the lespondent no.3 was ou so the petitioner disagreeing with estjmated/calculated the same at fhe it luuch lesser i.e, Rs. 12.40 lacs jccise CoTnmissioaer overiooked the [2002 that the cost offhe plaat aud j; Valuation Coinmittee as per Rule 'the ware house and to iaclude fhe Mr. Mukesh Vyas at the time of popy ofthe letter dated 20,07.2003 L. The petitioner vide letter dated Excise Coininissioner, Raipur him regarding fhe claun of the Ip-om respondent no,3 amounting to dated 03.04.2003 that the claim the respondent no.2 has rejected petitioner also ctiallenged the ijrhich was done relyiug on fhe data Cttartered Account of the respondent p^titioner is that the valuation of the it^m.8 was not done properly and as v^luation the representatives of the ^ntative of the outgoing licensee fhe valuation committee and aUow XJ-HC-22 an^i^i vi'u'v sn^r ^>^f ^d tg-?' 'siKiSSiSS. ||gii!5;!sa;aB'1' T^ •<<NICI<I, aTil+i'is, fiiwi'Hy WW'IT »<1iqi -H^ sni^t ?t<iiWHf??i •?>-!- licenfeee petition^r's the representatives of ftie process. However, fhe and that s why the valuation wa; the petitioaer has also ffled an i which is stiU pending (Aanexu petitioner subinits that the decided. exute appe^l cucumslances ded petitKjner Having heard fhe learued regard to the facts and fhe petitioner has ah-eady sovemiaent, therefore, fhe AppeUate Authority. However, ffi(i decide fhe appeal withiu a perio|l petitioner cau raise all his griev^nces which he has raised in this writ <ki<<f<-i<ii-( *ii*4cii4feIA <r<<^i< ^? siftiif an^r to participate ia fhe valuatioii representative was not allowed > excessive. 'Aggrieved by this onler ippeal before the State Govemment P-10). Learaed counsel for the is still pending and it is not beins couusel for the pardes and havinj of fhe case and the fact that an appeal before the State caa pursue his reiaedy with fhe AppeUate Authority is dirccted to of oue nionth from. today and the before the Appellate Authority ijetition, Learued counsel for tljie petitioner subnuts that the respondents are pressing hard fcjr inakuig payment aud iffhe appeal is not decided at the earliest the|i the whole piupose of the filing the appeal will be Irustiated. subinlssion In view of the above consider aU the grievaaces of the| appeal at fhe earliest aad if 4 Aufhority to decide fhe same atj i, the AppeUate Aufhorily shatl petitioner aad witt tty to decide his is not possible for the AppeUate the earUest then fhey caa consider -A_ XI-HC-22 sn^T^i Rl-fi?t> sv^s ?»i*ircti -ylia (?Ak.- I- '^5? -ill<llc'l'il, STlly'IS, fadltiy Wt|?IT(B*11<^ •^ ^•s?' an^i ^siiwafei about the request of the petitioi^er for postponiiig the p^iaent and aUthat. Wifh this observation aad) staads disposed of. Consequen^y No.6995/2003 for urgent hearins Certified copy as per Rules.j °hit|icf4t;I VHvS 4 fSCS <pilt<(l< ^T atiSgq diAi'i directions, tfais writ petition shaU /-, M.W.P. No.2075/2003 and I.A. also staud disposed of, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 3.