TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (8) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} D.H.Nasir, J. R.Subhash Reddy Advocates JUDGEMENT ( 1. ) BY G.O.Rt.No. 755, Revenue (Ex-III) Department, dated 26-5-1992, the 1st respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the value for securing release of the duty paid stocks, which is challenged in this writ petition. ( 2. ) THE Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad - 4th respondent, vide his letter dated 10-5-1991 cancelled the licence No.FL.24 held by N.Shanker Reddy by invoking the provisions of Section 31 of the A.P.Excise Act 1968 (for short 'the Act')....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances of the case, the Government ordered on 26-5-1992 that the offences alleged against the petitioner be compounded for an amount of Rs. 60,000/-. THE stock of liquor seized and found fit for human consumption were ordered to be released to the petitioner subject to a condition that in the event of failure on part of the petitioner to pay the compounding fee with the cost of the liquor for its release within the specified period, the order of the Commissioner of Excise dated 5-8-1991 would prevail. However, the said order dated 26-5-1992 has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground mat the 1st respondent was not empowered to call upon the petitioner to pay the value of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleased in accordance with the order of the High Court after the petitioner paid the compounding fee as well as half of the value of the duty paid stocks. ACCORDING to the respondent, there were no merits in the petitioner's case and the petitioner was no more a licencee after 30-9-1994. The learned Government Pleader drew my attention to Section 45 of the Act which reads as under: "45. Liability of certain things to confiscation :- Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following tilings shall be liable to confiscation, namely:- (1) any intoxicant, materials, still, utensils, implements or apparatus in respect of or by means of, which such offence has been committed; (2) any intoxicant lawfull....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y accept from any person whose licence or permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence falling under Clause (b), Clause (c), or Clause (g) of Section 34, Clause (a), Clause (e), Clause (f), Clause (g), or Clause (h) of Section 36, Clause (b), Clause (c) or Clause (d) of Section 37 or Section 41 a sum of money not exceeding ten thousand rupees and subject to such minima as may be prescribed, in lieu of such cancellation or suspension or by way of compensation for the offence which may be have been committed as the case may be; and in all such cases in which any property has been seized is liable to confiscation under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner under this Section shall not be less than five times but not more than ten times the duty involved and where no duty is involved not less than rupees fifteen thousand but no more than rupees one lakh; Provided further that in all cases in which any property has been seized as liable to confiscation under this Act, may be ordered by him to be released on payment of the value thereof as estimated by him or by an officer authorised by him in this behalf. Provided also that where the property so seized is a liquor manufactured in contravention of this Act, such liquor shall not be released but shall be disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed." What is intended by the legislature by incorporating the above provisions i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other words 'compensation', the proceedings against the petitioner were not liable to be initiated or prosecuted any further and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be called upon by the Department to pay the full value of the stocks seized after payment of compensation for the purpose of releasing the same. This meaning could be distinctly carved out from the provisions of Section 47 and Section 47A of the Act and, therefore, no further conditions need be imposed on the petitioner for the purpose of releasing the stocks seized by the authorities. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that C.C.No. 169 of 1991 had been filed against the petitioner before the Court of the XVII Metropolitan Magist....