M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the short question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner is liable to pay difference amount of the excise duty on the Indian made foreign liquor pursuant to increase in duty by notification dated 10.8.2000.
(2.) PETITIONER was issued a wholesale licence for trading in Indian made foreign liquor and beer in the year 1990 -91 which was time to time renewed. Petitioner said to have deposited Rs. 1,50,000/ - as advance licence fee for the year 2002 -03. However, the petitioner received a notice from the respondents Informing him that the Accountant General Bihar and Jharkhand in its inspection report have pointed out that a sum of Rs. 8,41,502.70 being difference of excise duty on account of enhancement was due from the petitioner and therefore he is liable to deposit the said amount. On receipt of the said notice petitioner filed representation before respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Excise, Singhbhum West, Jharkhand stating inter alia that he was not liable to pay difference amount of excise duty as increased rate of duty would not be made applicable to the stock lying in possession of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was rejected and the demand notice for deposit of the aforesaid amount was sent to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of this petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, Superintendent of Excise, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, Jharkhand, it is stated that the rate of excise duty of foreign liquor was Increased and the same was duly published by notification in the official gazette on 10.8.2000 mentioning therein that it would be effective from the date of publication. Petitioner stated realizing increased sale price from the retail dealers of foreign liquor. The stock in hand on 10.8.2000 was calculated and the in creased duty was also calculated by the inspecting team and the department of Excise was informed about the aforesaid amount due and payable by the petitioner. Similar stand has been taken by the respondent, authorities of the Excise Department in their counter affidavit.
(3.) MR . Delip Jerath learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned demand for payment of increased duty as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, respondents are not justified in demanding difference of the excise duty on the stock for which excise duty had already been deposited at the time when stock were taken from the warehouse and brought to the godown of the manufacturing company and delivered to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the increased rate of duty cannot be made applicable to the stock available in hand of the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon an unreported decision of the Patna High Court rendered in CWJC No. 10663 of 1994, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -5 to the writ application. In the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel (CWJC No. 10663/1994), a Division Bench of Patna High Court held that the stock in hand of a licensee at the time of enhancement of duty could not be subjected to enhanced duty and the said notification enhancing Excise Duty cannot be made applicable to the stock in hand of a licencee.;