High CourtsSingle Bench

Deepak Rayal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 UK CK 0037

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1113 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 472 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2.

Petitioner was granted license for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Lal Tapad, Rishikesh, District Dehradun during Financial Year 2020-

2021. The period of license is over. Now, the Excise Department has issued a recovery against the petitioner for payment of the outstanding dues.

3.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of the recovery citation dated 2.06.2021 issued by Tehsildar, Rishikesh, whereby a

sum of Rs. 12,93,831/- + interest + others expenses are being sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuance of the recovery citation, petitioner has deposited a substantial amount but no material

has been brought on record in support of this contention. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is not disputing the amount

sought to be recovered from him. He further submits that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount, however, some reasonable time

be given to him for the purpose, as due to the pandemic and the lockdown imposed in consequence thereof, business of the petitioner has been badly

affected.

5.

Shri Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents submits that if the petitioner deposits 25% of the outstanding amount

within three weeks and undertakes to deposit the remaining amount in five equal monthly installments, he has no objection if petitioner is given the

facility of depositing the amount in installments.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Petitioner shall deposit 25% of the amount demanded from him, positively on or before 07.07.2021. In case, petitioner fails to deposit 25% of the

amount demanded, on or before 07.07.2021, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioner for recovery of the entire amount, in

accordance with law.

(ii) The remaining amount shall be deposited by the petitioner in five equal monthly installments. The next installment would be payable on or before

07.08.2021 and the remaining installments would be payable on or before 7th day of each succeeding month.

(iii) Interest, if any, shall be added in the last installment.

(iv) Subject to fulfillment of aforesaid conditions, recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till 10.12.2021.

(v) As petitioner has undertaken to directly deposit the entire amount with the concerned Department, therefore, he shall not be liable to pay recovery

charges.

(vi) However, it is made clear that in case of default on the part of the petitioner to abide by the aforesaid conditions, he shall not be entitled to

protection of this order and respondents would be free to proceed against him for recovery of the entire amount, in accordance with law.