Kela Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order of the District Excise Officer, District Haridwar, by which the plea of the petitioner of the return of the amount for the extended period of one month has been rejected as the District Excise Officer has followed the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 and not the U.P. Excise Act, 1910.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned State Counsel that the order which is under challenge in the present writ petition is an appellable order under Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 before the Excise Commissioner. Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 reads as under:-

"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 orders passed by Collector or such other officer under this Act, shall be appealable to Excise Commissioner in the manner prescribed by rules made by the State Government in this behalf:

Provided that no appeal shall be entertained under sub-section (1) 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 25 percent, 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, fees, penalty or other dues.

(2) State Government may either suomotu or on an 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 be passed under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of 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 that 25 percent, of the disputed amount of 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 requirement of preceding proviso in respect of such disputed amount of tax, fees, penalty or other dues."

Since the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910, no interference is being called for in the matter.

The writ petition is dismissed on ground of alternative remedy.