J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed assailing to proviso to Sec. 9A(1) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, 'Act, 1950') as also the impugned orders dt. 23/06/2014, 09/12/2014 and 09/03/2015 respectively on the premise that Sec. 9A(1) of the Act, 1950 is unconstitutional and ultravires to the Constitution of India as the pre -deposit of 75% of the demand created by the respondents is onerous, highly excessive, unreasonable and is nothing else but to put a bar or restriction on the right to appeal of the aggrieved parties.
(2.) Brief facts noticed on perusal of material on record and hearing the arguments, are that the petitioner is a registered company and claims to be a non -banking finance company engaged in the business of providing financial services to its customers such as home loans, vehicle loans etc. A vehicle namely; Mahindra Scorpio, bearing registration No. RJ -44 -UA -0088, owned by one Leeladhar S/o. Gutaram, r/o. Chadhwas, Police Station Chhapar, Distt. Churu, came to be confiscated/seized on 23/01/2014 on the premise that in the said vehicle, illicit liquor, bearing 1 cartoon, 10 bottles and 28 quarters of 'Officer Choice Superior Whiskey' (for sale in Haryana) as also one 39 bore revolver with ten live cartridges were found during, sudden inspection of the said vehicle near Deedwana and a case u/sec. 19/54 of the Act, 1950 & Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act was made out and two FIRs bearing No. 19 & 20 dt. 23/01/2014 came to be registered u/sec. 19/54 of the Act, 1950 & Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act respectively at Police Station Deedwana, Distt. Nagaur. A detailed order dt. 23/06/2014 (Ann. 6) came to be passed by the Additional Commissioner, Excise, though after providing adequate opportunity to the owner (Leeladhar) who appeared before the said authority, holding that the use of the vehicle was for entirely different purpose then for which the vehicle is used as the vehicle was found carrying illicit liquor and therefore, in terms of Sec. 54A read with Sec. 69(4) of the Act, 1950, it was directed that the vehicle be confiscated. A fine of Rs. 5,10,000/ - was imposed and it was provided in the order that if Leeladhar (owner of the vehicle) deposits an amount of Rs. 5,10,000/ -, then the vehicle can be released to him (the owner) and in case the amount is not deposited, the vehicle be auctioned in accordance with law. It was also expressed that against the said order, an appeal lies before the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan at Udaipur. It appears that an appeal came to be filed by the petitioner and not by the actual owner before the Excise Commissioner against the order dt. 23/06/2014, however, the Excise Commissioner, taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 9A(2) & (4) of the Act, 1950, rejected the appeal as it was not in accordance with law, since neither the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of 60 days nor 75% of the amount demanded as pre -deposit was deposited. The petitioner further filed a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board and the Rajasthan Tax Board vide order dt. 09/03/2015 upheld the order passed by both the lower authorities and rejected the appeal on account of not complying with the provisions of the Act, 1950.
(3.) Ld. counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Sec. 9A(1) of the Act, 1950 are arbitrary and unreasonable and mandating to deposit 75% of the disputed amount is virtually debarring a litigant from availing remedy available under the law. It is further contended that no notice was given to the petitioner as the petitioner becomes owner since in the registration certificate, name of the petitioner also finds place and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Excise, without issuing a show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.;