Illegal benami operation of a liquor licence cannot defeat statutory recovery of excise dues.

A liquor licence cannot be sub-let or operated benami through a power of attorney, and such private arrangements are illegal. On the admitted facts, the petitioner managed the business through third parties while funds, guarantees and conduct were effectively controlled by him, so a compromise with the licence holders could not extinguish liability for the amount actually received and recovered under the statutory machinery as arrears of land revenue. The Court therefore declined relief and treated the recovery as enforceable against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could resist recovery of excise licence dues that were sought to be realised as arrears of land revenue, on the basis of a private arrangement and compromise with the licence holders.

Analysis: The petitioner admitted that the licence and business arrangement stood in the names of third parties, while the funds, guarantees and conduct of the business were effectively managed by him. The recovery was based on the retrospective validation of the levy and the amount had been refunded to him pursuant to the civil court proceedings. The Court held that a liquor licence cannot be sub-let or operated benami through a power of attorney, and that such an arrangement is illegal. On the admitted facts, the compromise and private understanding could not absolve the petitioner of liability for the amount actually received by him and sought to be recovered under the statutory machinery.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to the recovery and was not entitled to relief.

---