Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 119 of 2021 Appellant :- Shivendra Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sharique Ahmed,Arvind Srivastava,Namit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 10.02.2021 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The writ petition was preferred against the order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the Licensing Authority rejecting the application moved by the appellant/petitioner for compounding of the case under the Excise Policy of the State of U.P. dated 25.01.2018 and Section 74 of The United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 (for short "Act of 1910"). The application for compounding was dismissed finding it to be not a case falling under clause 7.4 of the Excise Policy.
The learned Single Judge found that the allegations are not for tampering of QR codes, bottle caps and seals but finding availability of 35 empty bottles out of which 24 bottles with caps and 11 without caps along with forged QR codes and 19 unused caps on the off search.
The allegations aforesaid were made in the show cause notice. The learned Single Judge found the allegations do not to attract Section 74 of the Act of 1910 and para 7.4(5) of the Excise Policy dated 25.01.2018. The detailed discussion of the issue has been made. For ready reference, para 7.4 (5) of the Policy is quoted herein-:
7.4 ससंयक्त पप्रान्त आबकप्राररी अधधिननियम ककी धिप्रारप्रा ७४ कके असंतररत पशमनिरीय अननियनमततप्राओसं कके पकरणणों म पशमनि धिनिरप्रानश मम एकरूपतप्रा बनिप्रायके रखनिके ककी दृनष्टि सके ककेतरीय अधधिकप्राररययो कयो नदिशप्रा ननिदिरश नदिए जप्रानिके हकेतय स्पस्ट पप्रानविधिप्रानि नकयप्रा जप्रायकेरप्रा। अततः पशमनि धिनिरप्रानश कप्रा आरयोपण ननिम्निप्रानियसप्रार नकयके जप्रानिके हकेतय ननिदिरश नकयप्रा जप्रातप्रा हह-:
क 0 अननियनमततप्रा/उलसंघनि कप्रा पकप्रार पथम बप्रार (रु० मम) नद्वितरीय बप्रार (रु० मम) ततृतरीय बप्रार (रु० मम)
सयरकप्रा पणप्रालरी अथविप्रा बप्रार कयोड नपल्फर पफ कह प यप्रा सरील सके नबरप्राड़ करनिप्रा The policy permits compounding of cases, if allegations are of tampering. The perusal of the show cause notice reveals allegations against the appellant/petitioner for having 36 bottles of illicit liquor and forged QR codes. The forged QR codes in 12 wrappers, 19 caps were found in a polythene bags apart from 35 empty bottles out of which 24 having caps and 11 without caps, etc. The extracts of the show cause notice are quoted herein for ready reference-:
"नदिनिप्रासंक 21.03.2019 कयो शरी अनियरप्रार धससंह आबकप्राररी ननिररीकक , शरी अनमत कय मप्रार ननिमरल आबकप्राररी ननिररीकक वि पयधलस कयोतविप्रालरी नतविप्रार ककी ससंयक्त टरीम कके सप्राथ हयोलरी कके त्यपौहप्रार कके बसंदिरी पर दिकेशरी शरप्राब दिक प्रानि नतविप्रार रसंज म नबककी ककी सयचनिप्रा पर दिनबश दिरी रयरी। दिनबश कके दिपौरप्रानि दिकेशरी शरप्राब दिकप्रानि नतविप्रार रजसं मम बसंदिरी कके नदिविस पर नबककी हयोतके पप्रायरी रयरी एविसं अनियजप्रानप्ति पररसर सके एक प्लप्रासस्टक ककी बयोररी मम 36 क्विप्राटरर नमलप्राविटरी निकलरी शरप्राब बरप्रामदि हहआ धजस पर निकलरी क्यप्रू आर कयोड कके 12 रप र 19 अपयक्त ढक्कनि एक प्लप्रासस्टक ककी पपॉधलथरीनि मम बरप्रामदि हहआ वि 35 खप्रालरी क्विप्राटरर धजसमके 24 क्विप्राटरर पर ढक्कनि लरप्रा हह वि 11 नबनिप्रा ढककनि कके बरप्रामदि हहए वि नमलप्राविटरी क्विप्राटरर 151 ककी ससंख्यप्रा मम बरप्रामदि हहआ ठकेकके कके असंदिर अलर अलर 02 कमरणों मम 1158 पकेटरी मस्तरीह बप्रासंड बरप्रामदि हहआ हह बसंदिरी कके नदिविस पर शरप्राब ककी नबककी पप्राए जप्रानिके वि उक्त दिकप्रानि कके अनियजप्रानप्ति पररसर मम पप्रायरी रयरी अविहधि मनदिरप्रा ककी बरप्रामदिररी आबकप्राररी अधधिननियम ककी धिप्रारप्रा 60/60 ऐ/64 कप्रा स्पस्ट उलसंघनि ह।ह "
Looking to the allegations made in the show cause notice, the license of the appellant/petitioner was terminated by the order dated 30.03.2019. The question for our consideration is whether a case for compounding was made out under Section 74 of the Act of 1910 and under Excise Policy dated 25.01.2018.
Keeping in mind the allegations in the show cause notice, the case for compounding was not found by the learned Single Judge. It was not a case of tampering of QR codes or caps. It was a case of forged QR codes and availability of caps and of the bottles.
The learned Single Judge has analyzed even the practice of supply of liquor by the distilleries. It is with an observation that the liquor supplied to the appellant company by the distilleries is in sealed bottles with QR codes. There may be tampering of the labels, QR codes or the seal. In those cases, compounding is permissible but it is not a case of tampering of QR codes or caps or the barcodes, but on the date of search, forged QR codes were found apart from empty bottles with caps and without caps. Separate caps were also found apart from empty bottles. It was, thus, not found a case of tampering so as to compound by invoking para 7.4(5) of the Excise Policy of the State of U.P.
Accordingly, we do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge in regard to the challenge to the order dated 23.01.2021. The issue raised and considered by the learned Single Judge was as to whether case falls under Section 74 of the Act of 1910 and the policy dated 25.01.2018.
The limited challenge made by the appellant/petitioner did not sustain and finding no error in the judgment of learned Single Judge, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Nirmal Sinha (Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)