Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1979Kant15
ORDER1. In accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act of 1965 (Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act') and the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Rules'), the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka, Bangalore, by his Notification dated 30th March, 1978 (Exhibit A), (published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary dated 12th April, 1978) among others, notified that the lease of the right of retail vend of toddy in the 11 Taluks of Bijapur District for the excise year 1978-79 i.e. from 1-7-1978 to 30-6-1979 (both days inclusive) will be disposed of in public auction by the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District, on 28-4-1978. In the public auction held on 28-4-1978, the petitioner qualified to bid offered the highest bid in respect of all the 11 Taluks in all aggregating to Rs. 1,18,000/- per month as against the previous bid amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- per month for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR909; 2000(2)KarLJ383
ORDER1. The petitioner obtained a CL-9 licence dated 30-6-1999 for the excise year 1999-2000 (valid till 30-6-2000) for running a Bar and Restaurant at premises No. 3-2-79 and 3-2-42/1, near Gandhi Circle, Shorapur.2. The second respondent issued a Circular dated 23-8-1999 informing all the Deputy Commissioners of Excise that this Court in the case of Mahabala Uggappa Adappa v Excise Commissioner and Others, had directed the Excise Commissioner to take immediate steps to cancel the excise licences where the businesses were not carried by the licensees themselves but by some other person on the basis of a 'lease agreement or power of attorney or the like', and therefore the Deputy Commissioners of Excise should initiate action in respect of all retail licensees as per the said order of this Court and report compliance within 30-9-1999.3. In pursuance of it, the third respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 28-9-1999 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(5)KarLJ30
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner claims that he held a CL-2 licence between 1987 and 1989. Thereafter the licence was not renewed. The petitioner claims to have made an application for a fresh licence on 7-8-1998 for the excise year 1998-99. That was not granted. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner claims to have filed W.P. No. 6079 of 1999 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to issue a challan to enable the petitioner to pay licence fee forthe year 1998-99 without insisting upon payment of licence fee for the excise years 1989-90 to 1997-98. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 16-4-1999 directing the Department to pass appropriate orders. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for the excise year 1999-2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are insisting upon payment of the licence fee for the excise years 1989-90 to 1997-98 as a condition precedent for considering the application for grant of licence for the year 1999-2000. Feeli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2903; 1999(4)KarLJ668
Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J.1. These writ petitions are filed in the nature of public interest litigation assailing the action of the officers of the Excise Department empowered to grant licences, in granting innumerable licences under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('Act', for short) and rules framed therein. Brief facts of the case are:2. The petitioners are the residents of different places in the State and they are aggrieved by the action of the respondents indiscriminately granting licences for the sale of Indian made liquor in the districts of Tumkur, Raichur and Kolar. The case of the petitioners is that the Act and the rules framed therein prescribe guidelines for the grant of licences. The authority to grant licence takes into consideration the population of the area as provided under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968. Therefore, the circular issued by the Commissioner dated 20-12-1995 (Annexure-H) be quashed with a direction to respondents 2 to 4 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR4113; 1998(5)KarLJ419
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Constitutional validity of Sections 68-B, 68-C and 68-D of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the 'Act') as inserted by Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1995 and Section 3 of the Amending Act has been challenged in these petitions on various grounds. However, keeping in view the fact that Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1995 had received the assent of the President of India on 21-2-1995, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have restricted their arguments and challenged the vires of the offending sections mainly on the ground of being violative of the guarantee of equality conferred by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted alternatively that non-providing of the alternative forum for redressal of grievances of the persons dealing with the liquor trade and bound by the Act have resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the officers of the Excise Department have been made Judges of their own cause. It is further alleged that the off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR459; 1999(1)KarLJ163
1. The owners/occupiers of bar and restaurants in the City of Bangalore, the respondents herein, had filed applications before the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, for conducting live band music in their respective bar and restaurants under the provisions of the Licensing and Controlling of places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'Licensing Order'). The requests made were rejected by the Commissioner of Police vide various orders passed against the respondents on similar grounds as detailed in Annexure-D filed in W.A. Nos. 1446 to 1460 of 1998. The Licensing Authority found that as under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and Rule 11 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called as the Licensing Rules) the respondents could not carry on any other activity in the licensed premises, where liquor is served, they were not entitled to the grant of licences. Aggrieved by the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ388
ORDER1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification No. FD 10 PHS 95(II), dated 31-5-1995 (Annexure-D) issued by the State Government under Section 71(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'), whereby by amending Rule 7 of the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1968 (in short 'the Rules'), it has enhanced the licence fee and has also inserted a new Rule 7-A prescribing an additional licence fee.2. The petitioners herein are all distillers. They have obtained licences under the provisions of the Rules. They broadly fall in the following three categories, namely.--'(i) Distillers manufacturing both non-potable spirits, as well as, Indian liquor;(ii) Distillers engaged in manufacturing of Indian liquoronly; and(iii) Distillers manufacturing only non-potable spirits'.3. Rule 7(1) of the Rules, before its substitution by the impugned notification dated 31-5-1995 (Annexure-D) read as under:--'7. Licence fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]232ITR568(KAR); [1998]232ITR568(Karn)
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for consideration at the instance of the assessee. Three questions are referred for consideration which are as follows ;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's income as a result of toddy tapping was not agricultural income exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of tapping toddy did not involve manufacture or production of an article or thing ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80HHA in respect of its toddy business ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is the licensee for tapping and vending of toddy. He filed his returns for the assessment year 1983-84 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(3)KarLJ429
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangalore, in Cri. A. No. 141 of 1997 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1-9-1997 passed by the Authorised Officer and Additional Superintendent of Excise, Mangalore, in No. SDK/ DBCR/485/94. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the State has come up with this revision.2. The accused by name Mahesh Gowda and Ramesh were found transporting 300 sachets of arrack in an autorickshaw without valid licence and permit. The same were seized by the Excise Authorities. After registering a case the said goods along with autorickshaw were produced before the Authorised Officer and Additional Superintendent of Excise, Mangalore, for confiscation. Accordingly, the Authorised Officer after holding an enquiry confiscated the autorickshaw bearing No. MEG 7363 belonging to the respondent by an order dated 1-9-1997. Accordingly,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR3641; 2009(6)KarLJ557
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in these petitions has sought for quashing the order dated 19th May 2009, passed by the second respondent, which is produced hereto as Annexure A.2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioner claims that it is in Hotel Business and is the Managing Partner of a chain of Hotels/Restaurants collectively called 'Hotel Empire'. 'Hotel Empire' has under it a chain of Restaurants/Hotels in all ten in number, located at various parts of Bangalore City. 'Hotel Empire' has a rich experience of about 45 years in the said business and during this period it has earned good reputation of serving tasty and hygienic food to its customers to their satisfaction in class I category. Petitioner having rich experience over a period of nearly four and a half decades in serving vegetarian and non vegetarian food in a hygienic manner has obtained necessary trade licence from B.B.M.P. vide licence No. 860/93-94 and other licences in respect of other nine Hotels and Restau...
Tag this Judgment!