Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show-cause notice has been issued Date of Order 09-10-2017 W.P.No.38239/2017 M/s. Avant Garde Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka & Others by the "District Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, (South), Bangalore", whereas the remand of the case was to the "Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District".

3. The learned counsel for the Respondents- Department however submits that the show-cause notice has been issued by the same Authority to whom the matter was remanded back by the learned Excise Commissioner and the words "Zilladhikari" (only means 'Deputy Commissioner') and there is no separate District Commissioner as is sought to be contended and therefore, the show cause notice in pursuance of the remand order has been issued by the same Authority having the jurisdiction to decide the said issue. He also submitted before the Court that this Court has decided this controversy by a detailed judgment in the case of M/s.High Point Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka, Bengaluru & Others Date of Order 09-10-2017 W.P.No.38239/2017 M/s. Avant Garde Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka & Others on 18.08.2017 in W.P.No.27575/2017 & Connected matters.

Date of Order 09-10-2017 W.P.No.38239/2017 M/s. Avant Garde Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka & Others

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 speaking adjudication orders, in cases where Objections are now filed about the quantum of penalty and damages Date of Order 09-10-2017 W.P.No.38239/2017 M/s. Avant Garde Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka & Others 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.