Petitioner sought refund of excess bar licence fee as his FL-3 licence was valid only for 58 days despite paying full year amount. Court applied Chitra precedent allowing pro-rated refund and interest.
Directions to recalculate proportionate licence fee for 58 days and refund balance with interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 903 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
SURENDRADAS
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE BHANU PANICKER, PORPRIETOR,
HOTEL GEETHU INTERNATIONAL, POOVAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURIAM.
BY ADV SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURIAM-695 001.2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURIAM-695 001.3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURIAM-695 001.SMT.RASHMI K.M. - SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 903 OF 2014
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, the sole proprietor of a three star hotel run under the name and style ‘Hotel Geethu International’ at Poovar, Thiruvananthapuram applied for issuance of an FL-3 licence. The said application was submitted in December 2012. By that time, the Government came out with an amendment to the Foreign Liqour Rules by taking away the three star hotel from its purview. The said amendment was challenged before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.470/2012, 670 and 745/2012 struck down the amendment. State of Kerala approached the Supreme Court and leave was granted and given the number as Civil Appeal Nos.26241/2012, 26243/2012. When the matter was pending the applicants/owners of three star hotels whose applications were pending, submitted an application for issuance of directions to the respondent State to consider their applications for issuance of bar licence. The said request was acceded to and directions were issued.
WP(C) NO. 903 OF 2014
3
year but the time when the direction of the Supreme Court came to be passed, the licence was issued only for a period of 58 days. The only payer now sought is for reduction of the licence fee for utilization of the b ar for 58 days a nd refund of the balance amount. In support of the contention, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chitra and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 KHC 4552] wherein similar circumstances, in paragraph 9, direction was issued to the respondent to recalculate the proportion amount of licence fee due and payable by the petitioner for 58 days.
WP(C) NO. 903 OF 2014
4
amount of licence for 2012-2013. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment cited above reads thus:
“9. On the predication of the legal analysis and discussion in Civil Appeal No. 2246 of 2006 (supra), we are of the opinion that the Appellant is only liable to pay the proportionate licence fee for the period in which it could avail of the licence, that is 25.3.2003 to 31.3.2003. It would be fair to cogitate upon whether the Appellant should have declined the licence for virtually a week in that year, and since it failed to exercise that option, whether it should be burdened with the fee for the full year. It seems to us that any person placed in the position of the Appellant would not be in a position to decline to accept the renewal of the licence even though it was for less than a fortnight, since that would have led to the licence being rendered defunct; which may have then led to consequence of disentitlement for grant or renewal of the FL3 licence in the future.
WP(C) NO. 903 OF 2014
5
shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates Welfare Fund."
In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the matter
is squarely covered by the ratio culled out in Chitra and Others (supra). W rit petition is allowed. Directions are issued to respondents to recalculate the proportion amount of licence for a period o f 58 day s and refund the bala nce amount as early as possible or in case the petitioner applies for a fresh/renewal of licence for the next financial year, the same may be adjusted in that licence fee.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
nak
WP(C) NO. 903 OF 2014
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 903/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DIRECTION OF
THE APEX COURT DATED 19/9/2012.
EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
1/2/2013.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner entitled to refund of proportionate licence fee for unutilized period of bar licence.
Whether respondents directed to recalculate and refund excess licence fee paid for full year when licence valid for only 58 days.
Whether refund carrying interest directed under precedent ratio.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chitra and OthersApplied¶23
_Chitra and Others_ v. _State of Kerala and Others_ [2015 KHC 4552]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Surenadas
State of Kerala
Excise Commissioner
Deputy Commissioner of Excise
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Amit Rawal
Parties & counsel