9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o refund the basic license fee as well as security money deposited by the petitioner after deducting the basic licence fee for the period w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to 18.5.2017 - Petition allowed. - Writ Tax No. - 1252 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2019 - Ashok Kumar, J. For the Petitioner : V.R. Tiwari For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER ASHOK KUMAR,J. Heard Shri Vishwa Swaroop Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Avinash Chand Tripathi, learned counsel representing all the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged and prayed for quashing of of the order dated 28.09.17 passed by the Collector/licensing authority, District Kushinagar and subsequent orders dated 20.2.18 and 19.07.18 passed by the Commissioner, Excise, U.P. at Allahabad and Secretary, Excise, U.P. Apart from the aforesaid prayer, the petitioner has also prayed to issue a direction to the respondents/licensing authority at Kushinagar to refund the security amount deposited by the petitioner with respect to Country Liquor Shop, Banakta No.1, District Kushinagar and the basic licence fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered. By the show cause notice, the petitioner was directed by the licencing authority to submit its explanation/reply within a period of seven days failing which the licence fee and security money deposited/furnished by the revisionist will be forefeted. While asking his reply, the licencing authority has suspended the licence of the petitioner. In pursuance of the show case notice dated 20.5.17, reply was submitted by the petitioner on 29.5.17, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-13. The licensing authority has proceeded in the matter and has passed an order of cancellation of license vide lts order dated 31.5.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the description of liquor and the amount found at the time of seizure proceedings which is mentioned in the show cause notice and whatever is mentioned in the order of cancellation of licence is totally different. The licencing authority has mentioned in its order dated 31.5.17 that 36 boxes of LAILA BRAND , 75 boxes of MR.LIME BRAND and 7 boxes of country made liquor were recovered. Learned counsel for the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly preferably within a month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 3.8.2017 and in pursuance of the order dated 3.8.2017 the licencing authority has proceeded in the matter and has passed the fresh order on 18.8.17. The licencing authority has twisted the matter and recorded the incorrect finding by saying that the order of cancellation dated 31.5.17 was neither set aside by the Additional Commissioner in the appellate proceeding nor the same has been quashed by the High Court in the Writ proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 31.5.17 cancelling the licence of the petitioner was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and the matter was remanded to the licencing authority to re-examine the issue and to provide personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and that this Court has clearly observed that the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner is no longer in existence. Prima facie, the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l hearing by fixing the date as 23rd of September, 2017. The petitioner appeared before the licencing authority and has submitted his reply. No personal hearing was provided by the licencing authority on the date fixed, i.e., on 23.09.2017. An amendment application was filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of licence passed by the licencing authority dated 28.9.17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that now different grounds are taken by the licencing authority to cancel the licence of the petitioner. This Court has permitted the petitioner to incorporate necessary amendments in the body of the writ petition and also directed the learned Standing Counsel to file the counter affidavit to the amended petition by the next date fixed. The said writ petition No.656 of 2017, however, was dismissed by this Court on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and the petitioner was relegated to file an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Excise Act. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Excise, U.P. Allahabad, which was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondents before any of the higher authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the description of the money recovered from the petitioner's cash counter at the time of seizure proceedings was different than what has been mentioned by the licencing authority in his order. He has, therefore, submitted that there are serious variation in the description of goods as well as in the description of money recovered at the time of seizure proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the licensing authority was malice with the petitioner as from the very first day he has taken harsh steps against the petitioner by passing the order of suspension, thereafter, the orders of cancellation of licence. He has also submitted that the act of the licencing authority clearly establishes that he has clearly disobeyed the order of the higher authorities as well as the orders of this Court by which he was clearly directed to proceed in the matter treating the petitioner as a licensee. Learned Standing Counsel although tried to justify the order of the respondents, but accepted that no personal hearing was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
