Reserved on 24.9.2025 Delivered on 10.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. 169 of 2024 M/s Co-operative Company Limited …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of UP and 3 others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, Kartikeya Saran, Rakesh Kumar, Vrindavan Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bharat Pratap Singh, ACSC Court No. - 7 HON’BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sameer Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vrindavan Mishra and along with Mr. Abhishek Tiwari for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Pratap Singh, learned ACSC for the respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 7.11.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 4.5.2022 passed by respondent no. 3. 2 WRIT Tax No. 169 of 2024 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered company and involved in the business of manufacturing liquor and bottling of liquor. He further submits that this is second round of litigation as the impugned order has been passed in the teeth of the judgment passed by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2022 passed in Writ Tax No. 738 of 2021. He submits that while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, specific direction was given to the respondent that inspection report which was relied upon by the respondent shall be provided to the petitioner for submission of proper reply and in the absence thereof, the proceedings ought not to have been initiated. He submits that instead of adhering to the direction made by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2022 in its letter and spirit, only a tabulation chart/ questionaire has been provided, which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to the compliance of the direction made by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2022 passed in Writ Tax No. 738 of 2021. 4. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel has given reference of the impugned order and submits that in spite of specific direction, fresh notice has been issued which too without any supporting documents to which the petitioner can submit rebuttal of the notice. He further submits that only questionnaire has been supplied without any supporting document. He submits that the material used against the petitioner ought to have been supplied so that proper reply can be submitted. He further submits that specific grounds were taken in this respect in the revision but the same has also been dismissed without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner. He prays for allowing the present petition. 5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner was indulged in malpractices and was found transporting the alcohol without paying excise duty, therefore, the proceedings has rightly been initiated against the petitioner. He submits that from the statement of the driver of the vehicle in question, itself 3 WRIT Tax No. 169 of 2024 shows that malpractices being committed by the petitioner by not paying legitimate excise duty of the State. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. The main thrust of the argument made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the Writ Court’ order dated 5.1.2022 passed in Writ Tax No. 738 of 2021 have not been complied with in its letter and spirit as in the judgment it was specifically observed that material used against the petitioner shall be provided so that proper rebuttal may be made but instead of providing the material used against the petitioner, fresh show cause notice has been issued that too without any supporting document. 8. On pointed query put to learned ACSC appearing on behalf of State in this respect, he could not show any material, has been provided to the petitioner for filing rebuttal of the same. The record also does not reflect that materials used against the petitioner, have been provided to the petitioner at any stage. Only allegation has been made against the petitioner that joint survey was conducted and various materials were found against the petitioner but neither copy of the inspection nor the materials procured at the time of inspection nor statement recorded nor any other documentary evidence being used against the petitioner, have been provided to the petitioner. 9. Learned ACSC also could not show anything from record that the material used against the petitioner has been duly served upon or provided to the petitioner. 10. The respondent authorities are duty bound to provide all materials proposed to be used against the petitioner so that effective rebuttal can be submitted, if any, and thereafter order should be passed but case in hand is otherwise. The material used against the petitioner have not been provided in spite of the specific direction made by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2022 passed in Writ Tax No. 738 of 2021. 4 WRIT Tax No. 169 of 2024 11. In view of above, the matter requires re-consideration and for that purpose, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. 12. The matter is remanded to the Excise Commissioner, respondent no. 2, who shall provide each and every material proposed to be used against the petitioner, if any, and obtain a receipt thereof, within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall file its reply / rebuttal, if any, within next 20 days, thereafter reasoned and speaking order may be passed after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of reply by the petitioner. 13. In case of failure to provide the proposed material to the petitioner as indicated above, the present proceeding shall be deemed to be dropped. 14. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly. (Piyush Agrawal, J.) October 10, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad