Dismissed

M/S.v.S.Hosalli and Co. v. the Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2019WP/110864/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting a request to shift an Excise license. The Court held the impugned order was appealable under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, and thus declined to entertain the writ petition, reserving liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; liberty reserved to file appeal under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

M/S.v.S.Hosalli and Co. Vs the Commissioner… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.110864/2019 (EXCISE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S.V.S.HOSALLI & CO., SY.NO.619/3, AT:INAMHONGAL, TQ:SOUDATTI, RPTD BY ITS PARTNER, NARAYAN C KALAL, AGE:52 OCC:PARTNER, M/S.V.S.HOSALLI & CO., R/O:INAMHONGAL, TQ SOUDATTI. (BY SRI.M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE EXCISE OFFICE, B.M.T.C, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALURU.

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXCISE, EXCISE OFFICE, BELAGAVI, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶12

EXCISE INSPECTOR, SOUNDATTI REGION, SOUNDATTI.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAYAKA S KULKARNI, AGA)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ENDORESEMENT BEARING NO. DCE/ BGM/IML/ SOUNDATTI/01/2019-20/97 DATED 21.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the endorsement bearing No.DCE/BGM/IML/ SOUNDATTI/01/2019-20/97 dated 21.05.2019 and for a writ of mandamus to the first and second respondent to consider the representation dated 27.04.2019 produced at Annexure-G and allow the petitioner to shift its affected Cl-2 license from Sy.No.619/3 situated at Inamhongal, taluk Soudatti to Door No.749 of Inamhongal, taluk Soudatti.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner claims that he is Cl-2

¶21

license holder. He made representation to the respondents seeking permission to shift Cl-2 license under Annexure-G. The said representation of the petitioner was considered and the second respondent has issued endorsement dated 21.05.2019 stating that his representation for shifting cannot be considered.

¶22

The petitioner has alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 61 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, ‘Act’). Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is provided with an alternate remedy of appeal to the Excise Commissioner under Section 61 of the Act. When an alternate remedy of appeal is provided under the Statute, normally the writ Court will not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶23

¶24

India. Order under challenge is an appealable order. Since the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal under the statute, I decline to entertain the writ petition. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, the writ petition is rejected.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

M/S.v.S.Hosalli and Co. v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.v.S.Hosalli and Co. v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanamappa Laxmappa Kanakappanavar Vs Venkappa @ Adiveppa Yallappa Budihal

Avinash Ramachandra Hangirkar Vs Smt.Apekasha W/O. Avinash Hangirkar

Smt.Gangamma W/O Late U. Govindappa Vs U.Shankrappa S/O Late U. Thimmappa

Raitar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashraf Khan S. Pathan Vs the Executive Engineer

Kuberappa S/O Siddramappa Kalburgi Vs the Deputy Commissioner