HC sends notice to Delhi government and others to challenge new excise policy
New Delhi [India], Aug 4 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday issued an opinion to the Delhi government and others on another petition challenging the new excise policy, submitting that the right to collect taxes cannot be auctioned using the new rule.
The petition was filed by the Delhi Liquor Traders Association through attorneys Arvind Bhatt & Siddharth Sharma.
A division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has called on the Delhi government and others to file a response to the petition and has registered the case by August 9.
The petitioner requested “an appropriate ordinance or directive, to hold and declare that a state may not auction off the right to collect or collect taxes (such as excise or VAT) from the public, and allow the appropriation of the taxes collected (in addition to the auction price paid) as profits, as sought under Delhi’s excise policy for the year 2021-2022 (“new policy of ‘excise) or the iL policy (disputed alcohol). “
The petitioner urged the Delhi High Court to declare that after 01.26.950 the government of the day cannot grant an individual the “right to collect taxes” – and pocket them – without depositing them in the consolidated fund; with a clarification that by giving a different label (or nomenclature) to “tax”, such an objective – to enable a private citizen to collect taxes and pocket them – cannot be achieved.
“Hold and declare that the sovereign right to collect taxes cannot be auctioned by means of the new excise policy for the year 2021-22 (il-Policy) and the call for tenders of 26.06.2021 is unconstitutional ”, pleaded the petitioner.
“Hold and declare that the new excise policy is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, issue an appropriate order of direction, including in the form of a writ of certiorari,
canceling the new excise policy for the year 2021-2022 “, the petitioner urged and also requested the cancellation of the offer dated 28.06.2021, including any or all consequential measures taken within the framework of said offer by the defendant must declare the offer bad in law.
The petitioner also sought to ensure that every clawback of the true tax component reaches the Consolidated Fund and that monopolies and cartels are avoided, and that policy conditions do not preclude existing licensees and others ” not super rich ”to bid.
Until the new policy is formulated, a direct continuation of the existing L-7 and L-10 licensees, the petitioner urged the court.
As an interim measure, without prejudice to the petitioner’s claim on interim orders, those who already held the licenses before 24.02.2015 may be allowed to bid on the same terms for a one-off sale license, the petitioner said. (ANI)