Amit Goyal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery citation issued by Tehsildar Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby

petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of ₹47314626/- plus other charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said recovery citation has been issued pursuant to an order passed by learned District

Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 21.09.2020. He further submits that the order passed by District Magistrate has been challenged in appeal under

Section 11(1) of Excise Act before the Excise Commissioner and his appeal is still pending. He further submits that petitioner has moved an

application seeking relaxation from the condition of pre-deposit of 25 percent of the amount, which is yet to be considered. He further submits that

petitioner’s stay application is also pending before the Excise Commissioner, therefore, according to him, if the entire amount is recovered

pursuant to order passed by District Magistrate then the purpose of filing appeal would be lost.

Since petitioner is before the Appellate Authority, therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned recovery citation. However,

having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Excise Commissioner to consider petitioner’s

application seeking relaxation in the condition of pre-deposit of 25 percent of the amount, as early as possible, but not later than ten days from the date

of production of certified copy of this order.

For a period of ten days or till disposal of petitioner’s application seeking exemption, whichever is earlier, no recovery shall be made from the

petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery citation.