Allowed¶45

Shri Sheetal K v. the Commissioner of Excise

Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 – Rule 5(4)

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2025WP/11319/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CL-9 licence shifting; proviso to Rule 5(4) Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules 1967; district road upgraded to State Highway; show cause notice Annexure-G dated 22.08.2021; Appeal ECS/80/APP/2022; Excise Commissioner; Davanagere; SDV Bar and Restaurant; quashing of appellate order; writ of mandamus; Circular EXE/IML/02/2022-23 dated 29.09.2022; Microbrewery CL-4 CL-7 CL-6A exemption; Articles 226 & 227.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal no.ECS/80/APP/2022 (Annexure-A) quashed; writ petition allowed, saving petitioner's CL-9 licence from shifting. ¶45

Shri Sheetal K Vs the Commissioner of Excise — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:35803 WP No. 11319 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11319 OF 2023 (EXCISE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI SHEETAL K S/O KUMARAPPA K S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SY NO.24/9, PROVISIONAL KATHA NO.554, VENKATESHWARA CAMP, KEMPANAHALLI GRAMA, CHENNAGIRI TQ. DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 213.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B N SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE DY COMMISSIONER O/O DY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35803 WP No. 11319 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

IN APPEAL NO.ECS/80/APPELLANT/2022 DATED 17/05/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION FOR SHIFTING LICENCE OF PETITIONER IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 EXCISE COMMISSIONER VIDE CIRCULAR NO.EXE/IML/02/2022-23 DATED 29/09/2022 AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 17.05.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal no.ECS/80/APP/2022 at Annexure-A and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents not to take any action for shifting license of petitioner in terms of Circular dated 29.09.2022 at Annexure-C issued by Excise Commissioner, this petition is filed.

¶26

Sri BN Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was holder of CL-9 licence running Bar and Restaurant by name, SDV Bar and Restaurant at premises in Sy.no.24/9, provisional Khatha no.554, Venkeshwara Camp Kempanahalli Grama, Chennagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. It

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35803 WP No. 11319 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

was submitted, petitioner was approved for shifting to said premises, after verifying that said premises did not suffer from any objections as per Rule 5 of Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 ('Rules' for short). It was submitted, after shifting petitioner was doing business by renewing his licence every year as required. It was submitted, petitioner had earned goodwill at locality. Thereafter, in view of Government Notification, upgrading district roads to State Highways and on ground that petitioner's Bar and Restaurant, was in vicinity of district road now upgraded to State Highways would be objectionable, petitioner was issued with notice by Deputy Commissioner of Excise for shifting to any other suitable premises as per Annexure-G dated 22.08.2021. Said notice was challenged by petitioner before respondent no.1 - Excise Commissioner. Under impugned order at Annexure-A dated 17.05.2023, petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. Challenging said order, this writ petition was filed.

¶30

It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of Notification issued by State on 16.08.2024, gazetted on 17.08.2024, amending Rule 5(4) of Rules, a proviso to following effect was inserted:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:35803 WP No. 11319 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

"Provided that, nothing in sub-rule (4), shall be applicable to a person holding a Microbrewery licence or a licence in Form CL-4 or Form CL-7 or Form CL6A or Form CL-9."

¶35

4. With insertion of proviso creating an exception to

¶36

holders of CL-9 licence, petitioner would be saved from shifting. On said ground alone, learned counsel for petitioner sought for

¶37

quashing of order at Annexure-A.

¶38

Learned AGA, on other hand, though sought to oppose writ petition by referring to statement of objections, is unable to counter submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on amendment to Rule 5(4).

¶39

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.

¶40

It is seen petitioner is holder of CL-9 licence and operating same at premises hitherto in vicinity of district road and in view of issuance of Notification by State Government, upgrading district roads to State Highways alleged to have rendered premises objectionable. On said count, petitioner was issued with show cause notice for shifting as per Annexure-G.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35803 WP No. 11319 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Said notice was challenged by petitioner before respondent

¶44

no.1 leading to passing of order Annexure-A.

¶45

Admittedly dismissal of appeal is prior to amendment to Rule 5(4) of Rules inserting proviso creating an exception in case of persons holding CL-9 licenses amongst others. Thus, notice issued and order passed against petitioner would be rendered without basis. Consequently, petitioner would be entitled to succeed. Therefore, impugned order 17.05.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal no.ECS/80/APP/2022 at Annexure-A stands quashed . Writ

¶46

petition is allowed .

¶47

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Shri Sheetal K v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sheetal K v. the Commissioner of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.C. S. Phanichandra Vs the Commissioner

M/S Solarone Energy Private Limited Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/S Micro Labs Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Gowramma Vs the Executive Engineer

M.R. Shivalingaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Excise

N Gopi Vs the Managing Director