Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd. vs State of U.P. and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 11, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487924

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/487924
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;Yatindra Singh, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 11, 2002
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 744 of 1999
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise - restoration of Order -Section 11 of U. P. Excise Act, 1910 - petitioner appealed before U. P. Government against Order of Excise Commissioner who after granting license for distillery deleted two clauses afterwards from license - Sections 11 (1) and (2) give clear right of appeal and revision within stipula...

Key legal issue: Excise
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 - Sections 11

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd.

Advocate Bharat Ji Agrawal and ;Piyush Agrawal, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and anr.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 - Sections 11
Reported In: 2003(1)AWC444

Excerpt

.....victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted......in this behalf: provided that no appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section unless it is preferred by the aggrieved person within thirty days from the date of communication of such order and unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of having paid a sum of not less than 35 per cent of the disputed amount of tax, fee, penalty or other dues, if any, as the case may be : provided further that the appellate authority may, for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or relax the requirements of the preceding proviso in respect of such disputed amount of tax, fee, penalty or other dues. (2) the state government may either suo motu or on application by an aggrieved person call for and examine the records relating to any order passed in any proceedings under this act, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such orders or as to the regularity of such proceedings ; and, if in any case it appears to the state government that such order or proceedings should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly : provided that no order adversely affecting any party shall he passed under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity making his representation. provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be entertained unless it is preferred within thirty days from the date of the order of the excise commissioner and unless an appeal, where it lies has been filed and disposed of by the excise commissioner : provided also that no application for revision shall be entertained unless the applicant has furnished satisfactory proof of having paid a sum of not less than 25 per cent of the disputed amount to tax, fee, penalty or other dues, if any, as the case may be : provided also that the state government may, for reasons, to be recorded in writing, waive, or relax the requirements of the.....

Full Judgment

M. Katju and Yatindra Singh, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner had been granted a licence for distillery in Bijnor by the Central Government on 19.5.1956 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition for manufacture and sale of country liquor, Indian made foreign liquor, and alcohol. Thereafter he was granted P.D. 2 licence by the Excise Commissioner, U. P. vide Annexure-2 to the petition. By order dated 18.9.1991, Annexure-4 to the petition. Clauses 2 and 3 of the P.D. 2 licence were deleted. Petitioner filed application dated 24.9.1991 for recalling of the order, dated 18.9.1991 vide Annexure-5 to the petition. By order dated 5.10.1991, that application was rejected by the Excise Commissioner. The petitioner filed two applications before the U. P. Government through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, dated 29.5.1998 and 28.7.1999 vide Annexures-10 and 11 to the petition. These applications have not yet been disposed of.

3. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that in the appeal against the order of the Excise Commissioner, proceedings have been completed and orders are likely to be passed by the appellate authority very soon. This counter-affidavit was filed in April, 2000 but we are surprised that as yet, the appeal has not been decided.

4. Section 11 of the U. P. Excise Act states :

'11. Appeals and revisions.--(1) The Collector, and every other Excise Officer not being the Excise Commissioner shall, in respect of all proceedings under this Act, be subject to the control of the Excise Commissioner and all others passed by Collector or such other Officer under this Act shall be appealable to the Excise Commissioner in the manner prescribed by rules made by the State Government in this behalf:

Provided that no appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section unless it is preferred by the aggrieved person within thirty days from the date of communication of such order and unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of having paid a sum of not less than 35 per cent of the disputed amount of tax, fee, penalty or other dues, if any, as the case may be :

Provided further that the appellate authority may, for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or relax the requirements of the preceding proviso in respect of such disputed amount of tax, fee, penalty or other dues.

(2) The State Government may either suo motu or on application by an aggrieved person call for and examine the records relating to any order passed in any proceedings under this Act, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such orders or as to the regularity of such proceedings ; and, if in any case it appears to the State Government that such order or proceedings should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly :

Provided that no order adversely affecting any party shall he passed under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity making his representation.

Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be entertained unless it is preferred within thirty days from the date of the order of the Excise Commissioner and unless an appeal, where it lies has been filed and disposed of by the Excise Commissioner :

Provided also that no application for revision shall be entertained unless the applicant has furnished satisfactory proof of having paid a sum of not less than 25 per cent of the disputed amount to tax, fee, penalty or other dues, if any, as the case may be :

Provided also that the State Government may, for reasons, to be recorded in writing, waive, or relax the requirements of the preceding proviso in respect of such disputed amount of tax, fees, penalty or other dues.'

The above provision gives a clear right of appeal under Section 11 (1) and of revision under Section 11 (2).

5. This petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the appellate authority to decide the petitioner's application against the order deleting Clauses 2 and 3 in the petitioner's licence after hearing the petitioner preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The representations, Annexures-10 and 11 to the petition, shall be treated as appeal/revision under Section 11.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd. vs State of U.P. and anr. Same Subject Excise Same Judge M. Katju and ;Yatindra Singh, JJ. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 - Sections 11

Excise