Civil suit for excise-related loss maintainable where no effective statutory remedy existed and stock disposal was not lawfully secured.

A civil suit for damages was held maintainable despite the statutory bar in Sections 92 and 93 of the Tripura Excise Act, because the scheme did not provide an effective alternative remedy and the alleged loss was not protected as an act done in good faith in relation to excise revenue. The dispute concerned loss to unsold IMFL and beer stock after the bonded warehouse licence expired, and the authorities failed to arrange lawful disposal despite repeated requests. Compensation was awarded for proved stock loss, godown rent and incidental shifting cost, with simple interest from the date of notice; the claim for 15% interest was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil suit for damages was barred by Sections 92 and 93 of the Tripura Excise Act in the facts of the case. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, godown rent and interest for the loss caused to the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer.

Issue (i): Whether the civil suit for damages was barred by Sections 92 and 93 of the Tripura Excise Act in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The dispute arose from the expiry of the plaintiff's bonded warehouse licence and the consequent failure of the authorities to secure lawful disposal of the unsold stock under Rule 153 of the Tripura Excise Rules, 1990. The statutory bar in Sections 92 and 93 was held to protect acts done in good faith in relation to excise revenue, but not to create a complete immunity from civil liability for loss caused by official action or inaction where the Act provided no effective remedy. Applying the principles governing exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, the Court held that the scheme of the Tripura Excise Act did not furnish an alternative mechanism to redress the plaintiff's claim for damage.

Conclusion: The civil suit was maintainable and was not barred by Sections 92 and 93 of the Tripura Excise Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, godown rent and interest for the loss caused to the unsold stock of IMFL and Beer.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the authorities failed to arrange lawful disposal of the stock after the licence expired, despite the plaintiff's repeated requests and the earlier writ direction. The Court accepted the proved value of the destroyed stock, the claimed godown rent for the period the stock remained under restraint, and the incidental shifting cost, but found no basis for the claimed 15% interest. It fixed compensation on the basis of the established loss and granted simple interest from the date of notice, with enhanced interest only in the event of default.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 6,30,604/- with 6% simple interest from the date of notice, and the claim for 15% interest was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit by the trial court was set aside and the plaintiff's claim was substantially decreed with interest, subject to the directions for payment within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil suit for damages is maintainable despite a statutory bar on suits against excise where the Act does not provide an alternative remedy and the impugned loss is not protected as an act done in good faith in relation to excise revenue.

---