SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.T. Nanavati and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

SLP (C) No. 17024/1998 (with appln. for c/delay in filing SLP) [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17023/98]. D/d. 20.8.1999.

State of Gujarat and another - Petitioners

Versus

Maheshbhai L. Patel and another - Parties

For the Petitioners in SLP (C) 17023 of 98 :- Yashank Adhyaru, S.K. Sabharwal, Nirmala Gupta, Advocates, and I.M. Nanavati Associates.

For the Parties in SLP (C) 17024/98 :- Anip Sachthey, Alka Agarwal, V.D. Khanna, Advocates for I.M. Nanavati Associates.

For the Respondents in SLP (C) 17023/98 :- Assem Mehrotra and Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates.

For the Party in SLP (C) 17024/98 :- B.K. Satija, Advocate.

Practice and Procedure - Letter Patent Appeal - Held, High Court proceeded on the wrong factual basis, its judgement and order deserves to be set aside - Order of Tribunal also set aside and matter remitted back to Tribunal for decision the matter afresh and in accordance with law.

[Para 4]

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The State is challenging in these appeals, the orders passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 1761 of 1986 and 1762 of 1986 which were confirmed by the Division Bench of that High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 474/97 and 475/97 respectively.

4. The short point raised by the learned counsel for the State is that the High Court has gone wrong in proceeding on the basis that the demand of premium made in this case was in respect of the sales which had taken place in 1957. The learned counsel submitted that in the show cause notices, on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated, it was clearly stated that the demand of premium was in respect of the sales which took place on 17.1.76 and 11.2.76. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this factual position. As the High Court thus proceeded on a wrong factual basis, its judgment and order deserves to be set aside. We find that even the Tribunal has not given a clear finding in this behalf. Therefore, we also set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the question of premium afresh and in accordance in with law. These appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

.