SACHIN Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both the cases Sachin S/o Basalingappa Hanji is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement Annexure-A, dated 31.1.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi District, Belagavi, in one case for CL-2 licence and in another petition for CL-9 licence on the ground that the petitioner-Sachin S/o Basalingappa Hanji and his mother Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji were having 50% share capital in the partnership firm Ms. Sachin Wines and Ms. New Millennium Bar and Restaurant in question and after the death of mother Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji on 8.6.2017, for transfer of licence in favour of the petitioner-Sachin S/o Basalingappa Hanji as proprietor, the respondent-Excise Department cannot demand the transfer fee under Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1967.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-Mr. G.K. Bhat contended before the Court that such a case would fall within the ambit of Rule 17-A of the said Rules and not under Rule 17-B as discussed and interpreted by this Court in the judgment rendered on 28.2017 in the case of Shankar Wines, Wilson Garden, Bangalore v. The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka, Shanthinagar, Bangalore and Another, 2017 (6) Kar. L.J. 507, in W.P. No. 30590 of 2014 (EXCISE) connected with W.P. No. 56657 of 2014 (EXCISE) which is relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi District, Belagavi, in the present case.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State in both the cases, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and the controversy in the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Shankar Wines v. The Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka and Another, in W.P. No. 30590 of 2014 connected with W.P. No. 56657 of 2014.