SATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE case set up by petitioner is that he applied for a beer bar licence in Form F.L. -7B for Mandorin Restaurant, Hotel Shivam, District Varanasi in the year 2001 -02. Vide order dated 18.8.2000, Collector, Varanasi granted licence for beer bar. The licence continued and renewed upto Excise year 2003 -04. In the Excise year 2004 -05, petitioner requested competent authority to allow conversion of his beer bar licence into bar licence (F.L. -6 composite) so that he may also serve foreign liquor in his bar, which is part of Hotel restaurant. The said conversion was allowed by Collector, Varanasi vide order dated 25.5.2004 and petitioner's licence became F.L. -6 (composite) bar licence. Initially, licence fee for beer bar was Rs.75,000/ - and bar licence was Rs.3,50,000/ - per annum. The competent authority allowed a Model Shop to be run in the vicinity of petitioner i.e. around 25 -100 meters away from petitioner's restaurant as a result whereof petitioner suffered losses. He, therefore, surrendered his bar licence and requested competent authority vide letters dated 17.2.2007 and 26.2.2007 to allow conversion of licence from bar licence to beer bar. District Excise Officer, Varanasi, informed petitioner vide letter dated 1.3.2007 that such conversion in F.L. -7B beer bar license would be allowed only after depositing separate beer bar licence fee but this would be effective from 2004 -05 irrespective of the fact that petitioner deposited bar licence fee of the previous year. The petitioner made a representation/objection before Excise Commissioner on 7.3.2007 but nothing happened. In the meantime respondent no.4 again vide letter dated 8.3.2007 informed petitioner that his beer bar licence can be considered only after depositing licence fee of beer bar licence of previous excise years. By another letter dated 20.6.2007, petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.4,30,000/ - towards beer bar licence fee for the period of 2004 -05, 2005 -06 and 2006 -07. District Excise Officer proceeded to recover aforesaid amount along with penal interest whereagainst petitioner made various representations. Ultimately, petitioner preferred Revision before Principal Secretary (Excise), U.P. Lucknow who allowed revision vide order dated 3.8.2010 and remanded the matter to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order and the same was again rejected vide order dated 8.12.2010. The petitioner, then, came up in Writ Tax No.654 of 2011, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of revision before State Government under Section 11(2) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision no.15 of 2011 before State Government but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2011.

(3.) IT is contended that revisional authority has found that there was no conversion but a new licence was issued and therefore, petitioner was liable to pay fee for the entire period and further earlier beer bar licence was there, having not been surrendered though this fact is patently erroneous.