Karnataka High Court
P Veeraraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
(TO mes is se cene ee Seemenee SENSE ER EMEMINE ME RARINARES THOTT VUUKE UF RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C -ij.- AT TRE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN GALORE DATED THIS THE 18" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008 BEPORE THE HON BLE MR. JU STICE N. K UMAR P VEERARAS 7 &/O PALANISWAMY. _ ACKED 40 YEARS ; RA.J MARKETING AGENCY .. PETITIONER (By Sri: GER HAT. A AND _l CTME STATE OF KARNATAKA : - AY IMS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ERCISE. VIDHANA SOUDHA "BANGALORE 2 THE: COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 1m i KARNATAL KA . VOR RA LIGARA SANGHA BUTLINNG ba ANIA NA CTRL | SAN es. 3 THE f SPUTY (MOR MIS SiON ER 2S TS SNE NEM MOE AAIPSANES FNOTT VUUKE UF RAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C (By SMT ASHA RUMBARGIRIMATH, H CGP) if PETIT TOW 1S FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 _ "THE "ONS TITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESPONDENTS TO REFUND A SUM OF. ERMS OF THE APPLICATION ( OF. THE 19.2003 VI IDE ANNEX.C, . ON FOR PRLEG. THs DAY, Ho Be a are Pag a, bo sete ees 2 <i this writ petition segk&ong a writ of | mandamus Inv refunding a sum of itioner to the respondents. &. The petitiomer wase wholesale liquor dealer and m Forni CL-L upto emd of 1991-93, He et i retewed, In the year 1008, aought nogace py the same premises. The respondent- called upor te him te pey lieerice fee ind ie., fromm 1699-93 to 1997-98 as a precedent for granting the licence. The opehberer gas an amount of Bs.9,00,000/- being the hogiot fee for the exciee years 1902-93 to 1997-98 and eC 2 ees imes cecee coaein S SENT ES MEME E STE AINA THEE OUURI UF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C f had i acoorcinghy, licenoe wea granted. Persona who were waced as that of the petitioner had challenged Lich Hoenece fee over the period during te cs i £ Saat <u soa beng on : a ey .
=n iy ie whach. time the Toences did net carry on business 'and oe also, The wasted Single Judge nel Yaat in the Act prior to 2000 there is a Provision iO? Parewal of Poanoe, Therefore | | when an application ig Taade for lsenoe, i is on ope cation for fresh hoence, Therefore, the elith norities W e ere not jus tiled in collecting "he License fee ar ti expires peri exid it hae directed rig oe the. amount. ne. | -Aaereved oy the game, an ap pea! 28 fhe by: 'her Teepe ndents belure thia Court. The appeal was disniissed holding that there is no legal olieeting the said amount. Fellowing the said
- the earned Single Judge of this Court has ie San of (he grout ac cellected. Tt is in this the petitener has preferred this writ J. TRG Tegporcdente hauwe Aled their stetement of ae ebjectione contending that the claim made by the iva . othe ites 8: ie TT RENEE NMR E MTT RAIA THIRTY SURE UF RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C LiCenice Was isstiéd Ont fand of Eoence foe fee for the lest am years. € nsidesis 6 his . ; 4 a os 4. - eg e Line resvgret documen Lis . eid the ~1l Heence wae 'freer. 1992-93 to 1997-98 and excise: "year 1998-99.
for he wneerice fee ior the period of nen- accept t the contention of the petitioner thet y the Leemce lee for the period in ertiiied for tne refiened ef the they sought for dismissal of the + "2 4h, : newt heard the learned counsel appearing for L-
f the perties.
TOT NENT NE WE SAMIR ENEEREMR BRINE WME WS UNAS PE SRE VE RANRINALARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
-§ -
=. Sule 3 of the Narnatake Excise (Sale of Indian avail Perego Laguors) Rules 1968 (fer short hereiaafter:
referred to as "Rules") provides for grant of Hoonce wach reads as under: --
eis On PeCeye of the t of agplication under Rule 4 and subject te the provision specified ip Rale aA the Deputy Conntissioner or the B xoise Commissioner, as the cave pay be, wi squire wich other pertioulacs: as ; ne may deem "necessary and rms vse ng uiries Sor veritication of the particule re furnished. by the applicant and eC BL ch other i inquiries as he deerme fit. If tho Deouiy Commissioner or the Excise ommissioner, ag the case may be = satisfied that there is no objection to grant 'he ioemce apple for, le may grant the foe or payment of the fee preacribed numwaer Rule & for such deere:
Peewitied thet mo such Heenee shall be were by the Deputy Commmsioner except of \-
TOT TT Tae Te neers CENTRE WME WT ARAN TROT OVURE UP RAKINAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C t {hs i with the previous sanction of the Excige ae COILTSSIOrer., & Prag to mtroduction af Rule SA: i the gald caumne inte effect from | 24.5, 2000, there wes: i for renewal of Heenee. The aforesaid Rule peevides That the autherity may. Penew the } LGSTie OTL payment of fee prescribed under Rule- 3 for euch ieence. Te aS se Te Lis for pay ment, of licence fee for several bemeds of ice iced ietnione d thene in. "She aaid Rule do i foe te Be paid és renewal fee or ary fee to Se pail tor the period jor which the licence had lapsed. Sil, on the iueustence of the respondents to pay the period 1902-93 t 1907-98 a sum of )> owes paid by the petitioner to the "The said demand and payment has no legal bee Tet wee the subject matter of the writ coetition in Wert Petitten No 1102/1908, which was deposed of or 18.23.1998, The lwarned Single Judge held that aw the aforesaid payment for the lapsed period iagel sanction ard im the sbsence of any \-
MEE NENERA TRE TE MORI TINZET WM WE ARIANA NT UU UP RAKIVALARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
2 te a a t renewal of licence Some the aforesaid payment the authorities is Slegal. The sal judgment ere wy Bes appeal. The Division".
reught-to our notice either * Rulea which gitates pavinernt of teers ie: for the Is wh 'be cs had. not he el@ the licence © Wishes «91 "plication for cay the leence ise es:
Ex;
& G ler wiieh the applocant il the ! Leenwe 28 produced before absence 2 OF euch legal obligation a 2 tumble to pay ec Single Judge is ere ig vio lability to cummed by the TO en GE SEW WE WE MAME TE VUE VE AARAAIARA PIGS GUVUKE UP RAKNALAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C\ eeelg, ouniering @ Se eh Lg en APG uOeT OATIVRSSed im: thie writ petition, w hich mse has piven an undertaking «+ the fo Oey. When, "ere 3 EY GENRE Iga LITMISr Hew fo pay Ameri, RETRER De gy EARS] he nereon te whom such & given, ginee tne very mubbc policy amd is in sion 2S of the Contract twas tollowed by a lserned Single Judge of of aye, reported in 2000 (35) KRLJ 30 L-
'n the Case of Mere we.
Te rene nee NR NE SEN MEE IES FEE SM Wr RARINALABRA THOT COUKI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C:
-@ .
"There® ig mo queation for renewal of Hoence ame, therefore, whert an apphocation for. - euler year, the Department cannot recover licence few fr the earlier years. In view of it, coperdents wil have . fe consider the) pelieoner's application fer gre mm OF Keene wo SOE without demanding acy amour. as Eeence fee for. the -Oreviots yeurs when Ube peti itioner © dii not eeek 7 heme: sacl gments have atteined finality and = of the seme, a demand the amount so collected Sit is unfortunate that the respondents have WARE Tt te plea of ber of lematetion as well as the plea the aloresak diawussion, it ia clear Stete is mot enitled to recover arty amount TOT es ee SEE eM WA FH GU VP ARINAIARA Mir COUKI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C( ny ammount is recovered they are under arb to refiand the seid aemeurnt for which Be law of --
wlicabie. In that view of the rater, he 2 on oe be on" - we see a 8 Bae thi we oe. ms 18 SYLUTSSG & SUCCeR it fUS writ petit ie oth, Pee foe eee' i] THe writ pe petition i Aliwved PELE ij The sapon denta are directed to refund a linerwe fe for the lapsed years fromm the date af receipt of thia order. oo ERY in. the event of the amount net being orefun che within 30 days, the amount shall ary iyterest at 18% p.a. after the expiry of parities to bear ier owl costs. Sd/-
6 Judge