1 2025:CGHC:15051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1729 of 2019 1 - Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia Aged About 49 Years, Proprietor Messers Goldy Wines, F.L. 10 Wholesale License Holder (Then), Near Krishna Cold Storage, Torba, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Commissioner, Excise Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Dinesh Kumar Bole, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.03.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the impugned action of SMT NIRMALA RAO SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- the respondent for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may quash the Demand notices by the Respondent directing repayment of Rupees 27,05,562 by the Petitioner. 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may order costs of the petition to the Petitioner. 10.4) The Hon'ble Court may pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a reduction in the sale price of liquor which was the subject of challenge in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 06.12.2006 ruled in favour of the petitioner. In compliance with that order, an amount of Rs.92,43,401/- was paid to the petitioner on 05.06.2015. However, it is stated that on 06.02.2019, a notice was issued indicating that an amount of Rs. 27,05,562/- was paid over and above the due amount. 4. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. The reply filed by the State, particularly factual statement No.19/2017-18 issued by the Deputy Accountant General (E&RS, CAW), states as follows:- 3 Factual Statement No. 13 /2017-18 (State Excise) Incorrect calculation of interest, led to excess interest of ₹ 27.06 lakh given to contractor During the period of 1996-97 (combined State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh), the State Excise Department collected an amount of 30,55,065 from a contractor for supply of liquor. It was an excess amount incorrectly collected from the contractor with comparative to the other contractors during auction at that time. The impugned contractor filed a case at Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India awarded (March, 2015) its verdict in favour of the contractor and issued instructions to the Government of Chhattisgarh to pay the principal amount of 30,55,065 lakh along with interest at 6 per cent per annum. During scrutiny of interest case files of the Commissionerate, State Excise, Raipur for the period 2013- 14 to 2016-17, we noticed that the Commissionerate calculated compound interest of 61,88,336 (for 19 years) at 6 per cent per annum and paid 92,43,401 including principal amount of 30,55,065. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India nowhere mentioned in the verdict to pay the interest at compounding method. Thus, the Commissionerate incorrectly calculated the interest on compounding method instead of simple rate of interest. This incorrect calculation of interest resulted in excess interest payment of 27,05,562 (₹61,88,336- ₹34,82,774) to the contractor. -4- After we pointed out, the Commissioner replied that action to recover the excess amount will be taken after verification. The matter is brought to the notice of the Government and higher authorities of the Department.” 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the department has accepted its mistake, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation along with a copy of this order and factual statement No.19/2017-18 before the respondent within a period of 10 days. In turn, the said authority shall decide the representation strictly in accordance with the law keeping in mind the factual statement No.19/2017-18 issued by the Deputy Accountant General, preferably within a period of 30 days. 8. The interim order granted on 14.5.2019 shall remain in force for a period of 45 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi