Disposed

Hotel Meriya v. Excise Commissioner

Kerala HC12 Oct 2021WP(C)/18156/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging demand of license fee for 2020-21 was disposed of by directing the fourth respondent to consider a pending representation and pass appropriate orders after hearing, keeping further proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to consider the pending representation and pass appropriate orders after hearing within two months; all further proceedings pursuant to the notice were kept in abeyance.

Hotel Meriya Vs Excise Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 20TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18156 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 HOTEL MERIYA REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI.JOJO JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 579.

¶8

2 JOJO JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O A.C.JOSEPH (LATE), (LICENSEE OF FL 11 LICENSE BEARING RFL NO 11/2021/0037), HOTEL MERIYA, PULPALLY, WAYANAD, RESIDING AT AMAKKAT HOUSE, MULLANKOLLI P.O.PULPALLI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 579. BY ADVS. SHILPA SATHISH JOSE JONES JOSEPH INDRAJITH S KAIMAL A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, MEENANGADI P.O, WAYAND-673 591.

¶12

3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, MEENANGADI P.O.SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYAND-673 591.

¶13

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001.

¶14

BY SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) No.18156 of 2021 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2021

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Late A.C.Joseph, the father of the second

¶20

petitioner, held an FL-11 licence. He passed away on 20.09.2019. The licence was valid up to 31.03.2020. On

¶21

the application of the petitioner for change of name of the licensee, the licence was temporarily transferred in the name of the petitioner on 04.03.2020. Payment was effected in terms of Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. It appears that, due to various intervening circumstances including a dispute with the landlord, the application for renewal of licence was submitted only on 11.09.2020 as per Ext.P10. As per Ext.P11 the Excise Circle Inspector recommended renewal. On 14.07.2021 the licence was renewed for the Financial Year 2021-22 with a direction to the licensee to remit the fee for the

¶22

year 2020-21. A copy of the certificate of renewal is

¶23

W. P. (C) No.18156 of 2021

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

produced as Ext.P19. On 15.07.2021, Ext.P20 notice was

¶26

issued to the petitioner requiring him to pay the licence fee for the period 2020-21 with interest. Petitioner is aggrieved by the demand for licence fee for the period 2020-21. It is challenging the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶27

Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.A.Sudhi Vasudevan on behalf of the petitioners and the learned senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶28

According to the petitioners, the demand for

¶29

licence fee for the year 2020-21 is illegal since the licensee was unable to function during that year for various reasons including the non-grant of renewal by the authorities. Further the petitioner claims refund of the licence fee paid for the period from 01.04.2021 till

¶30

13.07.2021(the date of renewal of licence) on the reasoning that the delay in grant of licence was not attributable to the petitioner. Voicing the grievances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P23 representation before

¶31

W. P. (C) No.18156 of 2021 -: 3 :-

¶32

the 4^th respondent and the same is pending consideration. It would be sufficient if the 4^th respondent considers Ext.P23 and passes appropriate orders thereon.

¶33

Accordingly, without expressing anything on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P23 representation uninfluenced by Exts.P19 and P20, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let orders be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P20 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶34

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18156/2021

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 16.2.2001
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI. A.C.JOSEPH.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF FL 11 LICENSE ISSUED W.E.F 1.1.2015 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 4.3.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REFLECTING THE TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF THE FL11 LICENSE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE FL 11 LICENSE RENEWAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO MR A.C.JOSEPH
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KERALA GAZATTE DATED 17.3.2020
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 22.5.2020 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR SULATHAN BATHERY
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 4.9.2020 EXECUTED BY SMT USHA IN FAVOUR
	OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 4.9.2020 EXECUTED BY SMT USHA IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3

¶41

APPENDIX/ WP(C) 18156/2021

¶42

-2-

¶43

Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.9.2020
	ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT RECOMMENDING TRANSFER OF FL 11 LICENSE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.11.2020 SUBMITTED ON 23.11.2020 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND SMT MARY JOSEPH THROUGH RESPONDENTS 2ND AND 3RD BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUESTING FOR SANCTION UNDER RULE 19 OF THE FOREIGN LIQUOR RULES
Exhibit P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.11.2020 SUBMITTED UNDER S.67 OF ABKARI ACT BY 2ND PETITIONER AND SMT MARY JOSEPH BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH RESPONDENTS 2ND AND 3 ON 23.11.2020 BEARING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO S.B.C 3/2019 DATED 25.11.2020 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.20201 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 7610/2021
Exhibit P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.5.202021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 7610/2021
Exhibit P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 7610/2021
Exhibit P19	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER AS REGARDS THE RENEWAL OF FL 11 LICENSE
Exhibit P20	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P21	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ALL THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONERS IN KERALA

¶44

APPENDIX/ WP(C) 18156/2021

¶45

-3-

¶46

Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.1.2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO 511 OF 2003

Hotel Meriya v. Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Meriya v. Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.T.Abdul Jabbar Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Operative Societies (G)

Muhammed Rasheed Vs Muhammed Rafi

Sivasankar G., Vs the State of Kerala

Isha Baby Vs the Union of India

R. Jayachandran Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Sudev T.K Vs the Branch Manager