Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 110 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of licence - responsibility of disposal of stock as held in warehouse - India Made Foreign Liquor - suit for damages and/or loss caused to the plaintiff-appellant - Held that - The plaintiff-appellant under a license issued by the authority, gathered the stock of IMFL and Beer etc. but because of his license was not renewed and/or that he did not get the license following tender process, and, because of the law that he cannot dispose the stock of his own as Bonded Warehouse is always under the system of double lock having a key of lock with the Inspector of Excise, in charge of the Bonded warehouse and another with the owner of the bonded warehouse & in absence of the Excise Inspector, owner of the bonded Warehouse cannot open it and he has no right to do it, definitely the responsibility was on the defendant-respondents to arrange disposal of the stock of the plaintiff-appellant. Rule 153 clearly prescribes the provision for disposal of such stock which the defendant-respondents failed to apply and therefore, a Civil suit for damages and/or loss caused to the plaintiff-appellant surely maintainable against the defendant-respondents and the provisions of Section 92 and 93 cannot be applied as a bar. If Section 92 and 93 is strictly applied irrespective of the factual situation of the case, the plaintiff-appellant will be remediless. As the plaintiff-appellant clearly brought on record with oral and documentary evidence that the price of destructed IMFL was Rs.3,12,604/-. The plaintiff-appellant also calculated godown rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month from 31.03.1995 till 11.11.1997 and the amount was Rs.3,15,000/-. The labour cost for shifting all the stock for destruction, the plaintiff-appellant claimed as Rs. 3000/-. This amount of Rs. 6,30,604 the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get as damages from the defendant-respondents. The plaintiff-appellant claim of 15% interest per annum on the cost price of the destructed intoxicants i.e. Rs.3,12,604/- is not acceptable & the defendant-respondents should make payment of the same with 6% simple interest thereon from the date of service of notice under Section 80 CPC i.e. from 20.11.1998. The defendant-respondents are directed to make the payment within 60 days failing which the amount shall carry a penal interest @ 12% per annum.
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.
|