Allowed

M/S Pola Bala Prabha v. the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022WP/100388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging non-implementation of an order directing refund of transfer fees collected for adding a new partner to a licensed liquor firm. The court held that without an interim stay order, the respondent must implement the previous direction to refund the amount.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to implement the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent directing the 1st respondent to refund the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- and Rs.80,000/- collected towards tr

M/S Pola Bala Prabha Vs the Excise Commissioner in… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100388 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100388 OF 2022 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S POLA BALA PRABHA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.15/1, PARVATHINAGAR, BELLARY TOWN-583101, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. POLA RADHAKRISHNA S/O. POLA VENKAIAH CHETTY AGE. 64 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, A BLCOK, BMTC BUILDING SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI-583101

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI-583101

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DT.01.12.2021 IN NO.EXE/AUDIT/02/2021-22 AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FORTHWITH.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 100388 of 2022

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and granted with a licence in Form CL-7 in terms of Rule 3(7) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules 1968. The 3^rd respondent issued a demand notice on 19.05.2014 calling upon the petitioner firm to pay the transfer fees for admission of a new partner, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent by order dated 20.12.2014 set aside the demand notice and remanded the matter to the 3^rd respondent for fresh reconsideration. The 3^rd respondent passed an order reiterating the demand made earlier, against which the petitioner filed WP No.4548/2020. This Court by order dated 16.04.2021 allowed the writ petition and directed the 2^nd respondent to decide whether the petitioner firm is liable to pay transfer fee as specified under Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules 1967. The respondent No.2 after detailed hearing passed an order setting aside the demand made by the 3^rd respondent and further directed the 3^rd respondent to refund the amount collected towards transfer fees.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 100388 of 2022

¶26

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that the order passed by

¶27

the 2^nd respondent has not been implemented.

¶28

Sri.G.K.Bhat, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent is under an obligation to implement the order passed by the 2^nd respondent by refunding the amount to the petitioner which was collected towards transfer fees.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned HCGP for the respondent submits that against the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, an Appeal No.5/2022 is filed before the 1^st respondent and subject to the outcome of the said appeal, the claim of the petitioner for refund of transfer will be considered.

¶30

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

It is undisputed against the order passed by the 2^nd respondent, an appeal is filed before the 1^st respondent. However, there is no order of restraint passed against the 3^rd respondent from implementing the order passed by the 2^nd respondent. In the absence of any interim order staying the operation of the order

¶32

¶33

WP No. 100388 of 2022

¶34

passed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner is entitled for refund of transfer fees as held by the 2^nd respondent in his order dated 01.12.2021.

¶35

The learned HCGP submits that the appeal filed by the 3^rd respondent is reserved for orders and in that circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the 3^rd respondent to implement the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent directing the 1^st respondent to refund the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- and Rs.80,000/- collected from the petitioner firm on account of adding new partner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the

¶36

3^rd respondent in Appeal No.5/2022 before the 1^st respondent.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RSH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114

M/S Pola Bala Prabha v. the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pola Bala Prabha v. the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

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

Tarunkumar S/O Kenchappa Malagali Vs the Secretary (Pri and Seco.)

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ayub S/O Abdulmajeed Maniyar Vs State of Karnataka

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.Yallappa S/O. Gejjeppa Gadiwaddar Vs Gokak Taluk Land Regularization Committee