Partly allowed

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023WP/2254/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Commissioner of Excise to consider the petitioner's representations and pass an appropriate order on the refund of advance excise duty within three months, dismissing the extended prayer.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the representations and pass an appropriate order within three months; dismissed the extended prayer.

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2254 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2254 OF 2023 (EXCISE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. FORTLAND FOOD AND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY'S ACT, NO.97, 11TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, H. NAGARAJAN.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE O/O. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC "A" BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2/STATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE REPRESENTATION / NOTICE DATED 15.06.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR REPAYMENT OF ADVANCE EXCISE DUTY AND ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTY PAID ON THE STOCK THAT HAS BEEN DRAINED OUT BY THE KSBCL AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 2254 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is a Private Limited Company dealing in import of whisky from Scotland and distributing the same across various States in India. In the year 2016, the petitioner after paying the Advance State Excise Duty of Rs.22,05,716/supplied 100 cases to the various KSBCL depots in Bangalore. But on account of change in Karnataka State Excise Duty structure resulting in change in price of liquor, and affecting the movement of stock, the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to drain out the unsold stock in various depots in Bangalore. Accordingly, as per the direction of the respondent No.2, 39 cases and 133 bottles of blended scotch whisky were drained out on 16.3.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent No.1 to refund the advance State Excise Duty collected on unsold drained out whisky. The said representation has not been considered till today.

¶22

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law, if reasonable time is granted.

¶23

The said submission is placed on record.

¶24

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ

¶25

petition directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 15.6.2022 vide Annexure-A and also the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 2254 of 2023

¶28

reminder dated 12.10.2022 vide Annexure-C respectively submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

The writ petition is dismissed insofar as the prayer (b) is concerned.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

BKM

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 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

Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri R H Siddammanavar

Smt M Jayalakshmi Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. Vs the Central Board of Trustees

Berela Lalithamma Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka