Licensee not required to supply food with liquor. Estimation of cooked food turnover modified in assessment orders. Petitioner liable for demand.

The Court upheld the Division Bench judgment, ruling that the licensee is not obligated to personally supply food with liquor. As the restaurants in the hotels were operated by different individuals already assessed for cooked food turnover, the estimation of cooked food turnover at 15% of IMFL turnover in the assessment orders was set aside. The petitioner was made liable for the demand raised in the orders, with modifications, and directed to bear respective costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against assessment orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, estimation of cooked food turnover based on IMFL turnover, interpretation of Foreign Liquor Rules regarding ownership and operation of restaurants in hotels, applicability of Division Bench judgment on licensee's obligation to supply food with liquor.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested assessment orders Exts. P5 and P6 for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, where the assessing officer estimated cooked food turnover at 15% of the IMFL turnover. The petitioner argued that the turnover estimation was unjustified as the restaurants in the bar hotels were operated by different individuals who were already assessed for the cooked food turnover, rendering the petitioner's assessment without jurisdiction.

2. While challenging the assessment directly under Article 226 of the Constitution is not common, the petitioner referred to a previous assessment in 2006-07 where a similar estimation method was used and later overturned in an appeal. The petitioner also cited a relevant case law, State of Kerala v. Hotel Amrutha, to support their contention that assessment should not be duplicated when separate individuals are already assessed for the turnover.

3. The Government Pleader highlighted Form FL3 in the Foreign Liquor Rules, arguing that the licensee should own and operate both the hotel and the restaurant where IMFL is served. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the form does not regulate license conditions, and there is no specific rule mandating the licensee to supply cooked food.

4. Referring to a Division Bench judgment from a previous case, the Court reiterated that the licensee is not obligated to personally supply food along with liquor. Even if there are violations of Foreign Liquor Rules, it does not imply that the licensee must directly provide cooked food. The Court dismissed revisions filed by the Revenue based on these principles.

5. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Division Bench judgment, emphasizing that while food provision is required where liquor is served, there is no requirement for the licensee to supply the food themselves. In this case, the restaurants in the hotels were leased to registered dealers who were already assessed for the cooked food turnover, leading to the setting aside of the estimation of cooked food turnover based on IMFL turnover in the assessment orders Exts. P5 and P6.

6. Consequently, the Court set aside the estimation of cooked food turnover at 15% of the IMFL turnover in the assessment orders Exts. P5 and P6, making the petitioner liable for the demand raised in those orders. The Writ Petition was allowed with modifications in Exts. P5 and P6, and the petitioner was directed to bear their respective costs.

---