CHUNILAL R GANDHI Vs. COLLECTOR OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE.

(2.) HEARD forthwith.

(3.) THE Petitioner was holding an excise Licence bearing Nos. FL II 163 and CL/fl III 35 in his name and was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Pushpa wines Near Municipal "l" Ward Office, c. S. T. road, Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the year 2002-2003, licence fees for FL II licences in mumbai were increased by nearly four times, hence, the Petitioner did not renew his licence since it had become uneconomical to carry on business in Mumbai. With effect from 1-4-2002 the Petitioner closed down his business being carried on near Municipal "l" Ward office, C. S. T. Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070. Thereafter the Petitioner made an application to the Hon'ble Minister (State excise) on 22-19-2002 for shifting his licence out of Mumbai to Thane Distrct. It is the case of the Petitioner that he kept on pursuing his application but no action was taken by the government and ultimately he was orally informed that his application for shifting to thane could not be allowed. Petitioner thereafter made an application for shifting of his licence to Mangaon, District Raigad. The petitioner was informed that his application was under consideration by the Hon'ble minister. Thus the Petitioner's business remained closed for two years owing to the delay on the part of the Government in allowing his application for shifting his licence from Mumbai to some other District. It is the petitioner's case that he was surprised to receive a letter dated 25-3-2004 directing him to pay the licence fees for the year 2002-03 and 2003-2004 along with interest at the rate of 2% per month for the entire period if he wanted to have his application for shifting allowed. The Petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- for renewing the FL II licence and Rs. 1,61,040/- as interest for 366 days hence a total sum of Rs. 8,21,040/- for renewing the FL II licence. The Petitioner was further called upon to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- for renewing the FL II and CL/fl/tod III licence for the years. 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 although the business was closed. The Petitioner contended that he immediately approached the office of the 1st respondent and informed them about a judgment of this court in Writ Petition no. 4796 of 2003 wherein this Hon'ble Court has directed that fees for the period when the business was closed can not be demanded. The petitioner learnt that the demand for licence fees had been made on the directions of the commissioner State Excise. The Petitioner informed that unless he paid the said amount as licence fees, his application for shifting would not be allowed. Hence the present petition challenging the demand made for renewal of licence fees for the period, when according to Petitioner they were admittedly closed.