B SREERAM REDDY Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involve the same question of law. Hence, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the facts in W.P.No. 16109/90 are briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner was granted licence for seven shops at Tadepalli for the Excise year 1989-90. Licence fees of Rs.2,500/- fixed for each shop has been paid by the petitioner. The lease year was ended by 30-09-1990 and the petitioner was not found due of any amount to the respondent. However, surprisingly, after the excise period was over, the petitioner received the impugned notice dated 5-10-1990 from the respondent asking him to pay differential licence fees of Rs.6,500/-, on the ground that as per the provisions of Rule 6 of A.P. Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Arrack in Retail) Rules, 1968, (for short 'the Arrack Rules') the licence fees payable to the arrack shops situate in the Municipal Corporations together with belt area of 5 Km., from the pheriphery of Municipal Corporation was Rs.9,000/-.

(3.) According to the respondent all the arrack shops in Tadepalli area are within the belt area of 5 Km. from the pheriphery of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and hence, deducting the amount of Rs.2,500/- already paid, the differential licence fees of Rs.6,500/- was directed to be paid. Questioning the levy, the petitioner made representations to the respondent requesting him to withdraw the notice on the ground that he was not liable to pay the same. But the respondent has not considered the same. This writ petition is, therefore, filed questioning the above notice dated 5-10-90.