MODERN HOTEL, JAMMU Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Modern Hotel, Jammu
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THESE appeals involve identical questions of law and facts are being disposed of by this common order. In LPA (W) No. 213/99, the appellants
writ petitioners have called in question the order dated March 23, 1999
passed in OWPs No. 1007/91 and 491/90. In LPA (W) No. 426/99, the
appellants have challenged the order dated May 31, 1999 passed in OWP No.
288/91, In LPA (W) No, 386/99 order dated 30 -06 -1999 passed in OWP No. 158/99 has been challenged by the appellants, whereby all the writ petitions came to be dismissed.
(2.) THE appellants, by means of their writ petitions challenged the vires of SRO408 of 1983 issued by the respondents, whereby fee for
granting or renewal of a bar licence has been levied at Rs. 25,000/ - p.a.
w.e.f. August 1, 1983. The appellants in the LPA No. 213/99 also sought
to quash the Order No. 135 -GRF dated 19 -06 -1990 whereby the
respondent -State has directed the recovery of arrears of licence fee
levied under SRO -408 of 1983 and fixed installments for the recovery
together with interest. They further sought to quash notice dated
22 -08 -1990 issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer, City Excise, Range Jammu, demanding payment of the arrears of the licence fee together with
interest for the period from 1984 -85 upto 1988 -89. The appellants in the
LPA No. 426/99 besides seeking to quash the SRO -408 of 1983, prayed
before the Learned Single Judge to quash the notices issued by the
respondent -Excise & Taxation Officer, City Excise. Range Jammu and the
Collector of Recoveries under Land Revenue Act 1996, for recovery of
panel interest amounting to Rs. 63,900/ -. In LPA (W) No. 386/99 the
additional ground taken is that the appellant has already paid Rs.
31,276/ - to the respondents which has not been remitted against the demand made.
(3.) THE Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the writ petitions up -holding the notice of
Recovery. The appellants have challenged the orders under Appeals on the
ground that the SRO -408 of 1983 issued by the Respondent -State in
exercise of its power U/Ss 16 & 17 of the J&K Excise Act imposing a fee
for grant or renewal of bar licence to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ - per annum
was stayed by the court in the writ petition No. 737 of 1983 titled Å ''Ram
Mohan Singh Verma & Ors Vs. State of J&K & Ors and during the period of
stay of the operation of SRO -408 of 1983 the respondents have not made
any demand for payment of fee. The appellants have deposited the amount
in terms of the earlier SRO -184 of 1980. Therefore, the respondents in
law cannot raise such a demand and effect recovery. The appellants in the
LPA No. 426/ 99 have also pleaded that they deposited more but was due to
the respondents as licence fee in accordance with SRO 184 of 1980. The
notice issued by the respondents are, therefore, illegal and the
appellants are not under obligation to pay the licence fee as demanded
under the impugned notifications as no demand at the proper time was made
by the respondents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.