CWP/15331/2025 on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15331 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Tarsem Kumar Goel ……...Petitioner Versus Principal Secretary (Excise and Taxation) and Ors. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Tomar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State.

Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for respondent No.6. __________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Mohan, learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioner is that in no circumstances, CC limit account of the petitioner could have been ordered to be attached by the respondents on account of recovery of excise license fee dues.

2. Admittedly, perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties as well as documents annexed therewith, reveals that petitioner allegedly committed default in paying the license fee, as a consequence thereof, recovery proceedings have been initiated against him under the HP Land Revenue Act.

3. In the aforesaid proceedings, Collector vide impugned order dated 22.8.2025 (Annexure P-6), proceeded to order attachment of bank account bearing No. 03285261800037, which is stated to be a CC limit account with Canara Bank.

4. Since on the previous date, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner apprised this Court that CC limit account of the petitioner has been attached by way of impugned communication, this Court vide order dated 21.9.2026 called upon the Additional Advocate General to have instructions.

5. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, placed on record communication dated 12.10.2026 issued under the signature of Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of order dated 1.10.2026 passed by the Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh, thereby rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner to the recovery proceedings.

6. On instructions, learned Additional Advocate General, states that no instructions, if any, were ever issued by the department for attaching CC limit account of the petitioner, rather saving/current account of the petitioner was required to be attached. Mr. Kahol states that respondent only ordered for attachment of bank account of the petitioner, but he fairly states that admittedly, CC limit account of the petitioner could not have been ordered to be attached.

7. Since it is not in dispute that CC limit account of the petitioner has been attached instead of his other accounts, prayer made in the instant petition in as much as issuing direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Sirmaur at Nahan, to withdraw the order of attachment of CC bank account of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

8. Ordered accordingly.

9. Needful in terms of the instant order shall be done by the authority concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of two days in accordance with law. Petitioner may also furnish bank details of his other accounts, if any, to the respondent department within two days. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to order dated 1.10.2026 passed by Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh, thereby rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner to the recovery proceedings. October 14, 2026

(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)

Judge