M/S Barak Warehouse Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents in the Excise

Department.

Issue notice, returnable by 4 (four) weeks.

Extra copies of the writ petition be served on the learned counsel for the respondents as indicated above within three days.

The petitioner is a licencee of a bonded warehouse in the name and style ‘M/s Barak Warehouse Pvt. Ltd.’. After the amendment of the

Assam Excise Rules, 2016, the procedure adopted is that the warehouse itself will now not be a bonded warehouse but would be known as a

warehouse and secondly the excise duty is to be pre-paid when the liquor enters the warehouse. The petitioner had certain amount of liquor, which

entered the warehouse prior to the amendment, which obviously required the excise duty to be paid at the time when the liquor goes out of the

warehouse. The petitioner has made a statement in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that in respect of all such consumable liquor, which had gone out

of the petitioner’s warehouse, the necessary excise duties had already been paid as was required under the earlier dispensation.

In the circumstance the impugned notice dated 03.03.2021 has been issued to the petitioner that they have failed to deposit the excise duties for

certain consumable liquor in respect of the liquor stock which entered the warehouse prior to the amendment of the Assam Excise Rules. As the

excise duties for the consumable liquor had already been paid at a stage when the liquor moved out of the warehouse, again requiring the petitioner to

pay the excise duties for the same liquor for entering the warehouse, prima facie would be unacceptable in law.

In view of the prima facie case made out and also considering the balance of convenience as well as the irreparable loss that the petitioner may

suffer, in the interim, it is directed further action under the notice dated 03.03.2021 against the petitioner shall not be taken.

Mr. K.P. Pathak submits that there is a possibility that in respect of some of the liquor, the excise duties may not have been paid when it went out of

the warehouse. If it so, the respondents may work it out and inform the petitioner. The petitioner shall also cooperate in such respect.