Court sets aside orders, grants refund with interest to petitioner.

The court set aside the order dated 08.05.1992 and the memorandum dated 09.06.1992, deeming them unsustainable. It held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of any amount paid pursuant to the interim order, with interest. The petition was allowed, with no orders as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the order dated 08.05.1992 by the Commissioner of Excise.
2. Validity of the memorandum dated 09.06.1992 by the Collector of Excise.
3. Legitimacy of the demand for Rs. 9,68,750/- raised on the petitioner.
4. Compliance with the terms of the L-5 licence granted to the petitioner.
5. Authority of the Excise Department to issue a second show-cause notice after the finalization of the first.
6. Legal principles governing quasi-judicial decisions and the power of review in the absence of statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Dated 08.05.1992 by the Commissioner of Excise:

The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.05.1992, which rejected their appeal against the demand for additional licence fees. The court found that the original order dated 01.04.1985, which deleted two restaurants from the L-5 licence without imposing additional fees, had become final. The Commissioner's order to charge additional fees was thus unsustainable, as it contradicted the finality of the 1985 order.

2. Validity of the Memorandum Dated 09.06.1992 by the Collector of Excise:

The memorandum dated 09.06.1992, raising a demand of Rs. 9,68,750/-, was issued pursuant to the Commissioner's order. The court held that since the Commissioner's order was invalid, the memorandum based on it was also unsustainable. The demand was quashed as it was not supported by any statutory provision or rule.

3. Legitimacy of the Demand for Rs. 9,68,750/- Raised on the Petitioner:

The court observed that the petitioner had complied with the terms of the L-5 licence, which included three restaurants. The demand for additional fees was based on an error by the respondents, not the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be penalized for an inadvertent error by the Excise Department, and the demand was therefore illegitimate.

4. Compliance with the Terms of the L-5 Licence Granted to the Petitioner:

The petitioner had obtained an L-5 licence for the Orbit Bar, which included three attached restaurants. The court noted that the petitioner had adhered to the licence terms and had stopped serving liquor in the two restaurants once they were deleted from the licence by the 1985 order. No violations were recorded during inspections, and the petitioner had duly complied with the licence conditions.

5. Authority of the Excise Department to Issue a Second Show-Cause Notice:

The court ruled that the Excise Department lacked the authority to issue a second show-cause notice in 1989, four years after the finalization of the first notice in 1985. The first show-cause notice had proposed additional fees, which were not imposed, and the matter was considered resolved. The second notice was deemed an impermissible review of the earlier quasi-judicial decision.

6. Legal Principles Governing Quasi-Judicial Decisions and the Power of Review:

The court reiterated that quasi-judicial authorities cannot review their decisions unless explicitly empowered by statute. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that the power of review must be conferred by law and is not inherent. The 1985 order was a quasi-judicial decision that had resolved the issue, and the subsequent attempt to impose additional fees was beyond the authority of the Excise Department.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the order dated 08.05.1992 and the memorandum dated 09.06.1992, deeming them unsustainable. It held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of any amount paid pursuant to the interim order, with interest. The petition was allowed, with no orders as to costs.

---