2014 (5) TMI 31 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Permission to shift A-4 Liquor shop Implementation of Department order - After issuance of the proceedings - Held that - Under Rule 28(3) AP Excise Rules, 2012., the jurisdiction to permit shifting of the shops is exclusively vested in respondent No.1 - This Court is only concerned with the non-implementation of the order passed by respondent No.1 - The main reason for respondent No.1 for not ensuring implementation of his own order is that ward No.14 is included in the list of wards, where location of A4 shops is prohibited - There are two proceedings whereby respondent No.1 has opined that ward No.14 is not a prohibited ward - No justification found for the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to shift the shop to ward No.14 - Having issued the proceedings, it is the bounden duty and obligation of respondent No.1 to ensure that his subordinates carry out his orders in letter and sprit - Respondent No.3 has indeed meddled with the issue over which he has neither authority nor jurisdiction whatsoever by purporting to reject the petitioner s application by passing an order - Respondent No.3 is directed to permit the petitioner to shift the A-4 shop in terms of the proceedings of respondent No.1 - Writ Petition is allowed - Other W.P. for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the respondents' action in not granting permission to the petitioner to establish an A-4 shop at the specified location.
2. Examination of the petitioner's request to shift the A-4 shop due to public agitation.
3. Inconsistencies in the reports and decisions of the Prohibition and Excise officials.
4. Authority and jurisdiction of the respondents in permitting the shifting of the A-4 shop.
5. Non-implementation of orders issued by the competent authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Respondents' Action:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the respondents' action in not granting permission to establish an A-4 shop at a specified location as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner argued that the respondents' refusal to permit the shift from S.N. Puram to Ward No. 14 was unjustified and contrary to the recommendations of the Prohibition and Excise officials.

2. Examination of the Petitioner's Request:
The petitioner initially applied for and was granted a license to run a retail liquor shop at S.N. Puram for the year 2012-13. However, due to agitation by women organizations, the petitioner requested permission to shift the shop to Ward No. 14. The request was examined, and reports were submitted by various Prohibition and Excise officials, consistently recommending the grant of permission to shift the shop to Ward No. 14.

3. Inconsistencies in Reports and Decisions:
Despite initial recommendations supporting the petitioner's request, subsequent reports by the Prohibition and Excise officials changed their stance, implying that Ward No. 14 was a prohibited area for A-4 shops. This change was based on an inference rather than explicit inclusion in the prohibited list. The court noted grave inconsistency in the officials' reports and decisions, highlighting that the initial reports did not consider Ward No. 14 as prohibited.

4. Authority and Jurisdiction:
The competent authority to permit the shifting of the A-4 shop is respondent No. 1. The court observed that respondent No. 3, who rejected the petitioner's request, lacked the authority to do so. The court emphasized that respondent No. 1, being the Chief Controlling Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, failed to assert his authority and ensure the implementation of his order permitting the petitioner to shift the shop.

5. Non-implementation of Orders:
The court found that respondent No. 1's order dated 14.11.2012, permitting the petitioner to shift the shop to Ward No. 14 or other specified wards, was not implemented by respondent No. 3. Despite the order, respondent No. 3 rejected the petitioner's request, and respondent No. 1 failed to take corrective steps. The court criticized respondent No. 1 for supporting respondent No. 3's indefensible action and not ensuring compliance with his own order.

Conclusion:
The court directed respondent No. 3 to permit the petitioner to shift the A-4 shop to the specified location in Ward No. 14 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The writ petition was allowed, and the interim relief application was disposed of as infructuous.

← Previous Next →