Karnataka High Court
Mrs Yashodha S Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
W.P.No.26807/2017(EXCISE)
BETWEEN
MRS. YASHODHA S SHETTY
W/O SRI.SUDHIR PRASAD SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT "ANUGRAHA"
OPP. BEJAI CHURCH,
MANGALURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
IN KARNATAKA,
PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA
2ND FLOOR, TTMC, A BLOCK,
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-575001
Date of order : 13.10.2017 in W.P.No.26807/2017
Mrs. Yashodha S. Shetty vs. The State of Karnataka & Others
2/5
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU-575001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU-575001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.M.SURESH REDDY, AGA )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE AS PER ANNEXURE-E DATED
11.04.2017 AND ANNEXURE-F DATED 11.04.2017 ISSUED BY
THE R-5 & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.Sanath Kumar Shetty K. Adv. for Petitioner. Mr.A.M.Suresh Reddy, AGA Adv. for Respondents.
The controversy involved in the present petition is with regard to levy of Penalty under Rule 14 (2) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 is covered by an order passed by this Court in the case of M/s. High Point Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka & Date of order : 13.10.2017 in W.P.No.26807/2017 Mrs. Yashodha S. Shetty vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 3/5 Others (W.P.No.27575/2017 and connected matters) decided by this Court on 18.08.2017. The relevant portion for ready reference is quoted below:
"27. This Court is further of the view that the said fiscal liability in the name of Penalty under Rule 14 (2) of the Excise Rules of 1968 is actually the price or the liquidated damages to be paid by the Excise Licencees or vendors of liquor for the breach of contract on their part for short-lifting of the prescribed quantity of liquor from the State Beverage Corporation. That is why there is no need to go into the question of mens rea or opportunity of hearing or raising an objection in that regard was considered appropriate in the aforesaid case in Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant Vs. The State of Karnataka and others, decided by this Court on 27/06/2017 and the requirement of giving such opportunity wherein Rule 14(2) was restricted in the case where the licence itself was sought to be cancelled for the said reason of short-lifting of the liquor.
Date of order : 13.10.2017 in W.P.No.26807/2017 Mrs. Yashodha S. Shetty vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 4/5
28. This Court also does not find any merit in the contention No.III that measure of Penalty under Rule 14 (2) cannot be assailed on different price range for different types of liquor. It is for the Legislature to adopt such measure and no illegality or arbitrariness is seen in such a measure adopted in Rule 14(2) in the present case.
29. This Court has also noticed that in none of the cases, the petitioners have even raised any such objections or reasons for such short lifting of liquor. Had it been so raised, the authority concerned of the Excise Department could have been expected to pass appropriate orders in this regard. Having not done that, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise the said plea of alleged breach of principles of natural justice to get the demand notices quashed on the said ground.
30. Having said as above, this Court is of the view that while upholding the levy, about its mathematical computation and assessment, the petitioners can be given even now an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Respondent authorities are directed to pass Date of order : 13.10.2017 in W.P.No.26807/2017 Mrs. Yashodha S. Shetty vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 5/5 speaking adjudication orders, in cases where Objections are now filed about the quantum of penalty and damages under Rule 14 (2) of the Excise Rules of 1968, within a period of one month from today. However, no objection as to the very levy shall be entertained by them. The petitioners are permitted to file such Objections within one month from today and thereafter a period of two months is allowed to the respective authorities to pass such orders thereon. No extension of time would be permitted to any of the parties in this regard."
The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL List No.2 Sl.No.21