Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 437 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxGranting of licence – notice issued by Collector and District Excise Officer Kanpur, inviting applications for grant of licence to the shops of which licenses were not renewed and 40 new shops foreign liquor and 2 new model shops. Petitioners challenged this notification on following grounds. Petitioner contention - opening of new liquor shops is contrary to Article 47 of Constitution of India as well as preamble of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. - held that - Supreme Court has clearly held that in Khodey Distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnakata, [1994 (10) TMI -269] law has created monopoly in State to regulate the business of liquor. In exercise of such privilege, State has right to open new liquor shop to raise revenue. However the Court can examine as to whether the State is exercising it's privilege in a reasonable manner or in arbitrary manner. Accordingly other arguments of the counsel for the petitioners are required to be examined. Petitioners contended that opening new liquor shop was arbitrary – held that - The arguments in this respect is not liable to accepted. The report of November, 2012 is not a proof that quantity of sale of liquor has been decreased from the sale of the previous year. The petitioners have deliberately not filed the report relating to the actual quantity of sale for the previous year as well as for the year 2012-13. Excise policy merely authorise the Excise Commissioner to increase new shops up to 15% and with the approval of the Government more than 15%. The actual number of new shops are increased on the basis of the report of the Collector of the district and not at the level of Excise Commissioner. Petitioner contention - there is a violation in the excise policy, it has been advertised that new shops will be increased up to 15% of the existing shops, but 40 new shops have been opened - held that - arguments that number of shops cannot be increased more than 15% is not liable to be accepted. In addition, a reading of the excise policy would show that the limit of 15% increase is not district wise but is applicable to whole State of U.P. Petitioner contention - the new shops have been located within a radius of 500 meters from the existing shops in violation of the provisions of Rules – held that - The Standing Counsel however submitted that till today, only the locality of new shops have been allotted, and it's boundary have not been fixed. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner in this respect is misconceived. Petitioners contention - no notice of opening new shops has been given before inviting applications for renewal. - held that - extensive survey was made by the Excise Inspectors of different localities and they submitted their reports for opening 40 new foreign liquor shops. The petitioners are in the excise business and all these facts were through out in their knowledge. The entire policy was available on the website as well as in the Office of the Excise Commissioner, U.P. In this policy itself, three phases of the renewal /allotment have been prescribed, fixing their time schedule. Accordingly, the argument of counsel for the petitioner is not liable to be accepted. Petitioner contention - Section 24-A (3) of the Act provides that where more licences than one of foreign liquor shop are proposed then advance intimation of the proposal was required - held that - Under this provision advance intimation is required to be given to the prospective applicants. Thus this section contemplate for wide publicity and not for individual notice. The Collector has published notice in the news papers for settlement of the new shops. writ petitions are dismissed.
|