Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3710; 1992(1)KarLJ360
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. All these three cases can be dealt with under a common order.2. We will deal with the facts in Writ Petition No. 15911 of 1986:-The question that arises for consideration is whether there could be a transfer of licence under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), mid way, not on account of the death of the original licensee but by volition.3. On 2-5-1984 a Circular came to be issued by the Excise Commissioner concerning transfer of licences. Para-2 of the said Circular reads:-'2. Transfer of licences:- Transfer of licence, like the transfer of property is an important aspect of fundamental right to property cannot be dispensed with. However, if a transfer of licence is proposed in the midst of the licensing year a nominal fee of Rs. 500/- per transfer of licence is to be charged as it involves certain amount of work to the department.'The petitioner got his CL.2 licence transferred in the name o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR1982; 1996(5)KarLJ678
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. Petitioners are the dealers in Indian made Foreign Liquor engaged in the business of either retail vending or running a Bar and Restaurant having licences in Form CL-2 or CL-9 as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the Rules'). Their licensed premises are located in Shimoga and Bhadravathi. Admittedly, till upto 17th July 1992, Shimoga and Bhadravathi were City and Town Municipal Council areas respectively. By Notification No. HUD/101/MNE/92 dated 17th July 1992 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Corporation Act'), the State Government declared the said areas to be a city and established a Corporation for the same, by the name 'Corporation of the City of Shimoga and Bhadravathi'. Subsequently, the Governor pursuant to the powers conferred on him under Section 3 read which Section 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3324
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Petitioners are the dealers in Indian made Foreign Liquor engaged in the business of either retail vending or running a Bar and Restaurant having licences in Form CL-2 or CL-9 as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the Rules'). Their licensed premises are located in Shimoga and Bhadravathi. Admittedly, till upto 17th July 1992, Shimoga and Bhadravathi were City and Town Municipal Council areas respectively. By Notification No. HUD/101/ MNE/92 dated 17th July 1992 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Corporation Act'), the State Government declared the said areas to be a city and established a Corporation for the same, by the name 'Corporation of the City of Shimoga and Bhadravathi'. Subsequently the Governor pursuant to the power conferred on him under Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3732; 1993(1)KarLJ54
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 18th September 1992, passed in Writ Petition No. 2848 of 1992. The learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner-appellant has come up in the Appeal. 2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the 'No objection' Certificate dated 29.6.1991 produced as Annexure-A inthe Writ Petition issued by the Pradhan, Chelur Mandal Panchayath, Gubbi Taluk. The 'No objection' Certificate was to the effect that the Mandal Panchayath had no objection for running a liquor shop in the premises bearing Khaneshmarr No. 223 of Chelur village. 3. The contention of the appellant-petitioner is that no place within the jurisdiction of a Mandal Panchayat shall be used as a shop whether permanently or temporarily, other than a shop referred to in Section 67 and 68, except under a licence granted or renewed by the Mandal Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2001KAR3940
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioners have questioned the endorsements dated 9-10-2000 and 19-10-2000 respectively issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, wherein he has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to continue their business carried on by them by virtue of CL-9 Licence.2. The petitioners after obtaining licence under CL-9 have been running the bar and restaurants at the respective places. It appears, a show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to shift their business premises to any other non-objectionable place. According to the authorities, the business of the petitioners are situated at a distance of 71 metres from Gnana Deepika School which is under construction.3. The petitioners also filed applications for renewal of their licence for the excise year 2000-2001 which applications were allowed by the authorities, permitting the petitioners to carry on the business for a period of three months commencing from 1-7-2000. However, they collected t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1975]35STC393(Kar)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner was a successful bidder at an excise auction held for the privilege of vending toddy in the district of South Kanara for the year 1971-72, i.e., from 1st July, 1971, to 30th June, 1972. It would appear that immediately after he was declared as a successful bidder he entered into an agreement with several other to vend toddy at different places within the district of South Kanara as it was permissible under the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder to get such sub-leases recognised. On the basis of the sub-leases granted by the petitioner the sub-lessees commenced to vend toddy at the places assigned to them on payment of the agreed amount to the petitioner. The petitioner brought to the notice of the excise authorities that he had sub-leased his privilege in favour of others and requested them to recognise the same. Before the excise authorities could make an order recognising the sub-leases the period of lease was over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1673; 1986(2)KarLJ165
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner in first case has challenged the validity of auction proceedings, dated 2-5-1986, of Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Bangalore, disposing of right of retail vend of toddy in Bangalore District and provisional acceptance of bid offered by fourth respondent.Petitioners in second case have challenged the validity of provisional acceptance of bid offered by twelfth respondent (who is no other than fourth-respondent in first Writ Petition) and for convenience, hereafter referred to as 'contesting respondent', in respect of retail vend of toddy and arrack at places mentioned in schedule to Petition including Bangalore District.2. Though attack is as against provisional acceptance of bid offered by contesting respondent, they vary in form.3. Brief averments in first case are :-Commissioner of Excise, Karnataka, in Notification No. EXE. EXS-1-2/86-87, dated 16th April 1986 published in Karnataka Gazettee dated 17th April 1986 notified disposal of right of re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1158; 1993(1)KarLJ627
K.A.Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 12th October 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27252 of 1992. Learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner has come up in this Appeal. All the respondents are served. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented through Sri S.R. Nayak, learned Government Advocate and Respondent No. 4 is represented by Sri T.S.Ramachandra, Advocate.2. As the Appeal involves a short question, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.3. In the Writ Petition, appellant/petitioner sought for the followingreliefs:'(a) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, declaring the order at Annexure-B, dated 22.8.1932 in No. ECS/20/Mis/92 as illegal and unenforceable; (b) issue a writ, and set aside or recall the order dated 20.8.1992 in W.P.No. 23949/92; and (c) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to strictly enforce the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Tapping ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2003)185CTR(Kar)417; [2004]265ITR498(KAR); [2004]265ITR498(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These two petitions involve interpretation of Section 206C(vi) of the Indian IT Act.2. Facts are as under:The petitioner Mysore Sales International Ltd., is a Karnataka Government undertaking and is engaged in manufacture of arrack. The petitioner is covered by the provisions of the IT Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner entered the arrack trade from 1st July, 1993, in terms of the excise laws. Prior to 1993, there were several private bottling units in the State of Karnataka and they were manufacturing and selling arrack. Auctions were conducted periodically for the purpose of conferring lease of right of retail vend of arrack. It was conducted with reference to designated areas. The successful bidders are entitled to procure arrack from the bottling units and then sell it in retail trade within their allotted area. The arrack trade is controlled by the State Government. The Karnataka Excise Act has framed several rules for appropriate enforcement of exci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR218; 1994(1)KarLJ469
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question raised by the petitioners pertains to the Excise Year 1985 to 1986 (1.7.1985 to 30.6.1986). The petitioners question the demand issued consequent upon the Amendment of Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties) Rules, 1968 (in short 'the Rules'), under which, the duty was increased to Rs. 6/- from Rs. 4/- per bulk liter.2. The petitioners are Excise Contractors, According to them, they offered their bids on the assumption that the duty would be Rs. 4/- per bulk liter. However, after the commencement of the Excise Year which was on 1st of June, 1985, Rules were amended increasing the duty to Rs. 6/- per bulk liter with effect from 1.8.1985. The demands were issued on various dates somewhere in the year 1987 claiming difference in the duties paid by the petitioners. Mr. A.G. Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:(i) The amended Rules, under which the duty was increased from Rs. 4/- to Rs. 6/- substituted the earlier Rule an...
Tag this Judgment!