Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3222
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions were the Arrack Contractors in the various Taluks of the State during the Excise year 1985-1986 commencing from 1-7-1985 and ending on 30-6-1986. At the time when the excise contract was given to the petitioners, the rate per bulk litre for supply of arrack was Rs. 4/-. However, it was tried to be raised to Rs. 6/- per bulk litre and it was tried to be collected from 1-7-1985 at that rate. Therefore these petitioners along with several others filed Writ Petitions Nos. 13061 to 13065 of 1985 and other connected Writ Petitions (Karnataka Excise Contractors Association (Regd) Bangalore v. The State of Karnataka) All those Writ Petitions were heard and decided on 2nd September 1987 in the following terms :'7. Whatever that may be, as far as these petitions are concerned, all that is necessary to say is that though undoubtedly the message (Annexure-D) issued by the Excise Commissioner directing the collection of excise duty at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4904; 2004(7)KarLJ611
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In all these matters, since identical questions of fact and law are involved all these petitions are clubbed together and a common order is passed.2. The petitioners in all these petitions, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Notification dated 19th June 2004 in Proceedings No. FD 17 EDC.2004 on the file of the first respondent - State Government, have presented the instant Writ Petitions.3. The facts of the case are that, all these petitioners claim to be the holders of licence for right of retail vend of arrack for the excise year 2003-04 being the highest bidders, and claim to be carrying on their business as per the terms and conditions of the contract in their respective Taluks and Districts. The disposal of the right of retail vend of arrack is regulated by the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (lease of Right of Retail Vend of Liquor) Rules, 1969 ('Lease Rules' for short) and under Section 17 of the Karnataka Excise Act ('Act' for brevity...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3582
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. Both these Writ Petitions can be dealt with under common Judgment since identical issues are involved except that petitioners are two different persons.2. The petitioners are Excise contractors. They took on lease the right of retail Vending of arrack in the Taluks of Maddur and Mandya of Mandya District. That was for the Excise year 1987-88. In these Writ Petitions they are seeking a direction to the respondents not to collect illegally Re. 1/- additional duty without authority of law and if any collection has been made contrary to this, they shall refund such excess collection so far as Excise year commencing from 1-7-1987.3. The history relating to this may be briefly set out. The right to Vend arrack and intoxicant came to be regulated by the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and various Rules made thereunder. The State Government leases out the privilege of vending liquor for valuable considerations. They are colle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4295
ORDERPatil, J. 1. In these Writ Petitions, wherever Rule is not issued, issue Rule nisi.2. In these petitions, the petitioners, questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned Notification dated 1st April 2003 in No. FD. 20 PES 2002, published in the Karnataka Gazettee No. 347 dated 1st April 2003 vide Annexure A, have presented these petitions. Further, they have sought for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, prohibiting the respondents 2 to 4 from demanding minimum lifting of liquor by the petitioners.3. The petitioners herein are the holders of Clause 2 and Clause 9 licences. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the Notification dated 1st April 2003 in respect of sale of liquor in a particular area or city or a town or location, depending upon the probable demand of the consumers. Therefore, it is their case that it is neither possible nor feasible to specify the minimum quantity of liquor to be sold by the retailers including the Bar and Rest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(117)ECC31; 2007LC31(Karnataka); 2007(2)KarLJ372; 2007(4)KCCR2181; 2007(2)AIRKarR588.
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner is a firm which claims to be a lessee of one M/s. Bangalore Grape Winery [P] Limited and licence holder for manufacture of Indian made liquor in bulk. It appears using the licence, the petitioner manufactures such liquor and marks it under the brand name of products of M/s. Shaw Wallace & Company with whom they have an independent arrangement The activity of manufacturing such liquor attracts liability for payment of duty under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short 'the Act'] in terms of the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The petitioner is paying such duty on the quantum of liquor so manufactured and issued in the factory premises at No. 13, Green Fields, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560 029.2. The present writ petition is regarding the dispute as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay duty in respect of certain quantum of such liquor which had underwent some process and which according to the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1802; 1985(2)KarLJ541
1. As common questions of law arise for determination in all these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common Judgment. 2. For different excise years commencing on the 1st of July of every calendar year and ending on the 30th June of the succeeding calendar year, the appellants were the highest bidders of the right to vend country liquor like toddy or arrack for one or the other revenue District/Taluka or part of them as is the case, in the excise tender-cum-auctions held for that purpose under the Karnataka Excise Act of 1965 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules 1969 ('1969 Rules') framed thereunder. On the final acceptance of their bids by Government, the appellants executed 'Lease Deeds' or written contracts with Government inter alia agreeing to pay shop rentals or 'kists' every month on or before the agreed dates and were thereafter vending liquor in the approved shops. 3. In exercise of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ272
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is assailing the legality and the validity of the impugned orders vide Annexure-D passed by the 3rd respondent dated 14-6-2002 in No. DTCR 468 of 2001-02, Annexure-E passed by the 1st respondent dated 7-9-2002 in No. ECS 27 APP 2002 and Annexure-F, dated 20-12-2002 in No. 662 of 2002 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.2. The petitioner is the CL-2 licensee and was engaged in the business of carrying on the business of retail sale of liquor at Karenahally Village of Hassan District. She was granted with the licence for the excise year 2001-2002. On 31-1-2002, the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Hassan Range, Hassan, gave a surprise visit to the petitioner's premises and found that the servants of the petitioner were manufacturing the illicit liquor and that even though there was no permit obtained for importing of the liquor, the Raja Whisky of 180 ml was found with the manufacturing date as 21-1-2002 and thereby 10,800 litres of liquor was locked i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2599; 1995(4)KarLJ214
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. In these Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Constitutional validity of Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act as amended by Act No. 2/1994 and the' Rules framed under the Act known as the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1995 issued vide Notification No. FD 10 PES 95(i) dated 31st May, 1995 as ultra vires the Act and beyond the legislative competence of the State.2. The petitioners are either Wine Merchants Association or the dealers in Indian and Foreign liquor. They obtained licences from the concerned authorities as provided under the relevant statute and the Rules i.e., the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the '1968 Rules'). The petitioners have licences either in Form CL-1, CL-2 or CL-9 for dealing liquor in wholesale or retail - or running Refreshment Rooms or Bar & Restaurants. Petitioners contend that their trade is controlled by the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2879; 1996(5)KarLJ579
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.In WP No. 45165 of 1995 with WP 45342 of 1995; WP No. 39284-307 of 1995; WP Nos. 1652 & 1653 of 1996; WP Nos. 39988 to 40024 of 1993; WP Nos. 40559-573 of 1995; WP Nos. 459 of 1996; WP Nos. 40685 to 40692 of 1995; WP Nos. 40741-42 of 1995; WP Nos. 40882-887 of 1995; WP No. 41089 of 1,995; WP Nos. 41329-333 of 1995; WP Nos. 41337 to 342 of 1995; WP Nos. 41566-571 of 1995; WP Nos. 41906-927 of 1995; WP No. 42361 of 1995; WP Nos. 42567-569 of 1995; WP No. 42659-671 of 1995; WP Nos. 42702-714 of 1995; WP Nos. 42884-897 of 1995; WP Nos. 43358 of 1995; WP Nos. 43394-396 of 1995; WP Nos. 44214-216 of 1995; WP No. 44524 of 1995; WP No. 44664 of 1995.1. Petitioners are retail vendors in Indian liquor holding licences either 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') having their licensed premises situated in Bangalore Rural District.2. Their grievance is that though k...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ26; 2007(4)KCCRSN248; 2007(3)AIRKarR99
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person whose husband was a participant in an auction conducted under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short 'the Act'] read with the Karnataka Excise [Lease of rights of retail vend of liquor] Rules, 1969 [for short 'Lease Rules']. The State had invited bids and offers from the intending persons to offer their bid for such rights in respect of Mandya Taluk and Pandavapura Taluk in Mandya District. The husband of the petitioner having unfortunately died before he could reap the fruits of his successful bidding for these two Taluks by offering a monthly rent of Rs. 68,00,100/- in Mandya Taluk and a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- in Pandavapura Taluk and the right to vending liquor which he had obtained having not been retained by the petitioner though there was an offer by the authorities under the Act that the petitioner could continue the right by exercising the option or willingness to be indicated within a stipulated tim...
Tag this Judgment!