Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
India Infoline Finance Ltd vs Additional Commissioner And Anr on 29 January, 2018
Author: M.N.Bhandari
Bench: M.N.Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21970 / 2017
India Infoline Finance Ltd., Registered Office - At 12-A 10,13th
Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, G-block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra-
Kurla (East), Mumbai 400051 and Also At India Infoline Finance
Ltd (IIFL), 2nd Floor, A-3, Lohia Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Vaishali
Path, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021, Through Authorised Signatory
Veer Bhadra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Additional Commissioner- Excise, Vitt- Bhawan, D- Block, Third
Floor, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Additional Commissioner- Excise, (legal), Abkari Bhawan-2,
Gumaniawala, Panchwati- Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwas Shukla For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Order 29/01/2018 By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 8th August, 2016, whereby, application made by the petitioner to release the vehicle has been rejected.
It is a case where a vehicle financed by the petitioner- company was seized by the Excise department on 21 st April, 2016. A case was also registered for the offence under the Excise Act. The respondents then issued an advertisement for auction of the vehicle. It was put for auction when none applied for release of the vehicle. Even no one challenged the advertisement for auction of the vehicle. The auction has already taken place followed by (2 of 2) [CW-21970/2017] confirmation of sale then at that stage, the petitioner moved to the respondents. It could not be explained as to why petitioner did not represent pursuant to the advertisements issued by the respondents from time to time, that too, first advertisement for it prior to 21st October, 2016. It is moreso when owner of the vehicle stopped paying the instalments since 21 st April, 2016, that too, when it was a case of monthly instalment. If petitioner failed to take action or to find out as to why the owner of the vehicle is not paying the instalment and did not even respond to the advertisement issued by the Excise department, no reason now exists to cause interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to seek remedy for release of excess payment, if any, coming out from the auction of the vehicle.
(M.N.BHANDARI) J.
FRBOHRA