Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 513 of 2019 Petitioner :- Prema Kadia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.
The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking quashing of Condition No. 2.7.4 of the Excise Policy for the excise year 2019-20, dated 25.12.2018 framed by the State government, by which instead of e-payment, National Saving Certificate is being demanded as security.
In an identical matter, while deciding Writ Tax No. 324 of 2019, Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 30.03.2019:-
"Pleadings have been exchanged in this matter.
Heard Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Dass, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the condition no.2.7.4 of the Excise Policy for the Excise Year 2019-20 dated 25.12.2018 framed by the State Government, by which the State Government has raised a demand for filing of National Savings Certificate instead of e-payment as security. He further prayed for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to accept the e-payment as security from the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the demand of National Savings Certificate is not warranted for reasons that the Rules, which have been framed for providing of security do not contemplate the filing of National Savings Certificate.
The petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the terms of Rule 12 read with Rule 2 (o) of the Uttar Pradesh (Settlement of Licenses for retail sale of Country Liquor) (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2018, which reads as hereunder:-
2(o) "Security amount" means a sum equal to the 1/10th part of the license fee excluding basic license fee, to be deposited preferably through e- payment in Government Treasury as interest free security, refundable after the final settlement of all the claims and dues to the State Government.
12. Payment of Basic License & Security amount-In case an applicant is selected as licensee, he shall deposit the entire amount of basic license fee within six working days of being intimated of his selection. He shall be required to deposit half of the security amount within ten working days of intimation of his selection and balance of the security amount within twenty working days of intimation of his selection. Entire amount of basic license fee and security shall be deposited by the applicant preferably through e-payment.
In subsequent year, the license of the shop may be renewed on the desire of the licensee according to the parameter of consumption as fixed by the State Government. If he fails to deposit the amount of the basic license fee and security amount within prescribed period, his selection shall stand cancelled and his earnest money and basic license fee as well as the security amount deposited by him, shall be forfeited in favour of State Government and the said shop shall be resettled forthwith in manner as prescribed by the Government."
Upon a reading of both the rules as quoted above, it becomes abundantly clear that the security can be satisfied by furnishing security by e-payment and asking for filing of National Savings Certificate in the Policy for ease of doing business is optional and cannot be made mandatory in view of the Rules. The demand for providing security only in the form of National Savings Certificate is not justified and it is beyond the scope of the Rules. The imposition and demand of National Savings Certificate is hereby relaxed in the case of the petitioner. So long as the petitioner complies with the Rules mentioned above and other conditions as prescribed, his grant of license may be considered in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs."
It is not disputed by the counsel for the parties that the case of the petitioner is similarly situate as that of Rakesh Kumar (supra).
We, therefore, disposed of this writ petition in the light of the directions given in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra).
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Amit Mishra