Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (2) TMI 110 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit and whether it is barred by limitation.
2. Entitlement of the plaintiff to compensation for the cost of destroyed Foreign Liquor.
3. Entitlement of the plaintiff to godown rent.
4. Entitlement of the plaintiff to interest, and the applicable rate of interest.
5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to the decree as prayed for.
6. Other reliefs the parties are entitled to.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

A. Maintainability of the Suit and Limitation:
The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable and barred by limitation under the Excise Act and Rules. However, the court examined the provisions of Sections 92 and 93 of the Tripura Excise Act and concluded that these sections do not bar a civil suit for damages caused by the negligence of the state or its officers. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in *Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh* and subsequent cases, which establish that a civil court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted unless there is an adequate alternative remedy provided by the statute. Since the Tripura Excise Act does not provide an alternative remedy for damages, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

B. Compensation for Cost of Destroyed Foreign Liquor:
The plaintiff claimed Rs. 3,12,604/- as compensation for the destroyed stock of IMFL and Beer. The court found that the plaintiff had a considerable quantity of unsold stock and the responsibility for its disposal rested with the Collector as per Rule 153 of the Tripura Excise Rules. The Collector failed to arrange for the disposal of the stock, leading to its deterioration and eventual destruction. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the cost of the destroyed stock.

C. Godown Rent:
The plaintiff claimed Rs. 3,15,000/- as godown rent for the period from 31.03.1995 to 11.11.1997. The court found that the plaintiff was forced to keep the unsold stock in his godown due to the failure of the defendants to arrange for its disposal. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed godown rent.

D. Interest:
The plaintiff claimed 15% interest per annum on the cost of the destroyed stock. The court, however, found no justification for the 15% interest claim. Instead, it awarded 6% simple interest on the amount of Rs. 6,30,604/- from the date of service of notice under Section 80 CPC (20.11.1998). If the payment is not made within 60 days, the amount would carry a penal interest of 12% per annum.

E. Entitlement to Decree:
The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 6,30,604/- with 6% simple interest from 20.11.1998. The judgment and decree of the trial court, which had dismissed the suit, were set aside.

F. Other Reliefs:
The court did not specify any additional reliefs beyond the compensation, godown rent, and interest awarded to the plaintiff.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The plaintiff was awarded Rs. 6,30,604/- with 6% simple interest from 20.11.1998, payable within 60 days, failing which it would carry a penal interest of 12% per annum. The case was disposed of, and the lower court records were ordered to be sent back along with a copy of the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates