Karnataka High Court
M/S Wine N Dine vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1615
WP No. 12671 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 12671 OF 2021 (EXCISE)
BETWEEN:
1. DAKSHINA KANNADA WINE MERCHANTS'
ASSOCIATION (REGD.)
AS ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE,
REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,
MANGALA HEALTH CENTRE BUILDING,
PADIL, MANGALORE - 575007,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
C.N.APPACHU,
S/O C A NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
(PETITIONER NO.1 DELETED WITH
LEAVE OF HON'BLE COURT AS PER
ORDER DATED 02.08.2021).
Digitally
signed by 2. M/S WINE "N" DINE,
PRAMILA G V A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
Location: CL-9 LICENSEE, NO.23-63.10(1)(2)(3),
HIGH COURT
OF KAPIKARD, THOKKATTU, MANGALORE-575007,
KARNATAKA DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
BY ITS PARTNERS JOACHIM LOUIS PINTO,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.K.BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1615
WP No. 12671 of 2021
BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA,
2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING,
SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE - 574142, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE 574142, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED DEMAND DT 15.06.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-E
ISSUED BY THE R4. DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENTS
AUTHORITIES ARE NOT COMPETENT TO DEMAND AND
COLLECT THE LICENSE FEE AND ADDITIONAL FEE ON
ACCOUNT OF UP GRADATION OF ANY LOCAL BODY FOR THE
YEAR, WHEN THE IS ALREADY RENEWED BY ACCEPTING THE
PRESCRIBED LICENSE FEE AS ON THE DATE OF RENEWAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC:1615
2. This petition is filed to quash the order dated
15.06.2020 marked at Annexure-E wherein, 4th respondent
has demanded Rs.50,600/- as arrears of licence fee payable
by the petitioner. The consequential relief is also sought to
restrain the respondents from demanding licence fee in
excess of what is already paid by the petitioner pursuant to
licence granted on 01.07.2014.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner adverting to the facts of the case would submit
that the petitioner applied for CL-9 licence under the
Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules,
1968 ('Rules, 1968' for short). The licence was issued on
01.07.2014 in respect of an area within the limits of Ullal
Town Municipal Council. It is further stated that with effect
from 09.12.2004, Ullal was converted as City Municipality.
Admittedly, the licence fee payable in respect of CL-9 licence
for Town Municipality is less than the licence fee paid in
respect of City Municipality. The licence issued earlier on
01.07.2014 was valid till 30.06.2015. Noticing the fact that
Ullal is upgraded as City Municipality, the respondents
NC: 2025:KHC:1615
demanded higher licence fee in respect of licence issued in
favour of the petitioner with effect from 09.12.2004 till
30.06.2015. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner would contend that the said demand at Annexure-
E is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H. Ibrahim and
Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others1. Learned
senior counsel would also refer to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1968.
Said Rule 7 reads as under:-
"Duration of licence- All licences other than "special
licences" and "occasional licences" granted or
renewed shall be valid for the year or where a
licence is granted or renewed on any date after the
1st July until 30th June thereafter".
4. The aforementioned Rule would clearly reveal
that the licence once granted shall be valid for the year or if
it is renewed, on any date after 1st July, then the licence will
be valid till 30th June thereafter. The plain reading of
aforementioned Rule would indicate that the licence is valid
for one year or till 30th of June if it is issued after 30th June
as enumerated in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1968.
1996 (5) Kar.L.J. 678
NC: 2025:KHC:1615
5. Merely because Rule 8 provides for different fee
structure depending upon the nature of the locality, Rule 7
does not enable the State to demand higher licence fee in
case, the locality is upgraded during the currency of the
licence. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
aforementioned judgment has also taken the view. Under
these circumstances, the demand made by the respondents
in terms of Annexure-E is contrary to the law and same has
to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Hence,
the following:-
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned Annexure-E dated 15.06.2020 issued
by respondent No.4 is quashed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
