Chandresh Kalal and Others etc. vs State of Rajasthan and Others etc.

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—All these sixteen writ petitions are laid by petitioners seeking annulment of the orders passed by the respondent Addl. Excise Commissioner, Jodhpur/Udaipur/Bikaner, deciding their applications for release of seized vehicles used in transportation of liquor.

The learned Excise Commissioner after examining the matter in its entirety, while resorting to Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1950) has found the petitioners guilty and invoking Section 69(1)(e) of the Act of 1950 confiscated the vehicle u/s 69(4) of the Act of 1950. In the final outcome, the learned Addl. Excise Commissioner while imposing penalty has directed the release of confiscated vehicle on depositing the amount of penalty within stipulated time else to auction the confiscated vehicle.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the orders passed by the learned Addl. Excise Commissioner are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1950 and as a consequence to the these orders, the petitioners have been deprived of their vehicles in absolutely arbitrary manner. While questioning the penalty, learned counsel would urge that the same is not commensurating with the market value of the vehicles.

Per contra, Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent/s submits that against the impugned orders, statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners and the said remedy of the appeal is provided u/s 9-A of the Act of 1950. Section 9-A of the Act of 1950 is reproduced as infra:

Section 9-A -Appeals and Revision-

(1) An appeal shall lie-

(a) to the Excise Commissioner from any order passed by an Excise Officer under this Act, and

(b) to the Division Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board constituted u/s 88 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Act No. 4 of 2003)] from any order passed by the Excise Commissioner under this Act otherwise than on appeal:

(2) Any appeal under Sub-sec. (1) may be preferred at any time within sixty days from the date of the order complained of.

(3) The decision of the Excise Commissioner or Division Bench of the [Rajasthan Tax Board] as the case may be, on such appeal shall, subject to the result of revision, if any, under Sub-sec. (4), be final.

(4) The Division Bench of the Rajasthan Tax Board may revise any order passed on appeal by the Excise Commissioner.

Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of payment of 75% of the amount of the demand created by the order appealed against.

(5) Any revision under Sub-Sec. (4) may be preferred at any time within thirty days form the date of the order complained of.

It is a trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not liable to be exercised when aggrieved individual can avail alternative efficacious statutory remedy. True it is that there is no absolute bar to entertain a writ petition when alternative remedy is available, but then it is a self-imposed restriction which the law Courts are following consistently.

In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders and consequently the writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal provided u/s 9-A of the Act of 1950. It is directed that if the petitioners prefer appeal within a period of two weeks from today before the Appellate Authority, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on merit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.

No order as to costs.