TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or vends with the support of respondent No.4-S.P. Pahuja, Excise & Taxation Officer, Barnala. Brief facts of the case are that the State of Punjab has framed the Excise Policy in the year 2015-2016. As per Excise Policy, the petitioner, who is working under the name and style of Ramanjot Singh & Company, Dhuri as a sole proprietor applied for the same and an application was moved before the licensing authorities under the signatures of Ramanjot Singh. Consequently, licences (Annexures P-1 and P-2) have been issued in the name of Ramanjot Singh & Company Dhuri which are valid upto 31.03.2016 and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner is doing business but respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-3) under his signatures in the name of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the application of respondents No. 5 to 11 to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Barnala. The said letter apparently appears to have been issued for extraneous reason and not as per the documents on the office file. In pursuance of notice of motion, parties appeared and filed their respective replies. Respondent No. 4 has filed specific reply that he was Excise and Taxation Officer o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied through Ramanjit Singh and Company and not through sole proprietor. Even in the application dated 23.3.2015, photograph of Amrik Singh and Amrik Son of Rogan Singh are attached. A copy of the application dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure R-5/1) has been annexed. They have also admitted that licence fee from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015 was fixed as Rs. 6,73,98,645/- . They also rely upon the partnership deed dated 01.04.2015 and reference to the challan receipt Annexure P-6 has also been made, which are alleged to have been paid by Hardev Singh, respondent No.5. and Hardev Singh, respondent No. 9. the averments are with regard to the complaint filed by respondents No. 5 to 11, which is on record as Annexure R-5/4 and reference to the FIR No. 42 dated 12.06.2012 and two other FIRs have also been made. Another application has been made to the SHO - Sukhdev Singh and another by Hardev Singh. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has also been filed and it has been stated that true facts of the case are that on the basis of a joint complaint submitted by the partners of liquor vends of MC Dhanaula, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner Barnala wrote a letter No. 863/Excise dated 30.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t petition. In reply another affidavit of Amrik Singh son of Natha Singh R\o Village Palia Kalan, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala has been filed, in which it is mentioned that Ramanjot Singh, Amrik Singh son of Rogan Singh jointly gave an application for licence of excise circle Dhanaula District Barnala for the year 2015-16 i.e. 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the application was moved on 23.03.2015 under the name and style of "M/s Ramanjot Singh and Company" by Ramanjot Singh, the present petitioner alone. The perusal of application (Annexure R-1) annexed with the reply of respondent No. 4 clearly reveals that it is given by Ramanjot Singh his name and signature and contact number have been given, however, on the said application three photographs are annexed but name of the persons in photographs have not been mentioned, reference to the photocopy of the application annexed with the reply has been made. The said application has also been annexed as Annexure R-5/1, which bears the photographs of three persons, their name are also not mentioned against the photogr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate vehemently contended that letter has been written in good faith to protect the rights of the State Government. He further contended that Excise Department has conducted an inquiry. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that he has issued letter in good faith to protect the rights of State Government which has been written after enquiry. Although the letter has been written in the name of Assistant Excise Taxation Commissioner, Barnala but it has been signed by respondent No.4. This letter was not issued in any extraneous consideration rather with bona fide belief to protect the rights of the State Government so that there may not be any revenue loss to the State Government for the activities of the petitioner. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have perused the record. The petitioner is doing business under the name and style of "M/s Ramanjot Singh and Company Dhuri" and the application was moved by the petitioner to the Excise Department under his own signatures and the license in Form L-14A for retail sale of Punjab Medium Liquor (PML) including beer for consumption off the premise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is of 01.04.2015 meaning thereby there was no partnership existing between the petitioner and private respondents and the licenses have been issued only in pursuance of the application dated 23.03.2015 and the fee was also deposited under the same name vide Annexure R-2 and the Income Tax Department account number is also issued in the name of Ramanjot Singh & Company, which has been placed on record as Annexure R-3. Respondent No.4 who has been impleaded by name has annexed Annexure R-1 partnership deed executed between the petitioner and private respondents and the name and style of the partnership firm has been mentioned as "M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company" and it apparently appears to be altogether different entity as the applicant is "M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company Dhuri" not "M/s Ramanjot Singh Dhuri & Company". Now it is also relevant to refer that the claim of the private respondents is based on partnership deed dated 01.04.2015, and no document indicating the registration of the firm has been annexed with the written statements. Although, registration of firm is optional there is no penalty on nonregistration of firms but an unregistered firm is burdened with certain dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the register of firms and the rights of such partners will not flow as a member of specific firm when the entities are altogether different. Now another question arises as to whether respondent No.4 could issue a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police for restraining the petitioner from carrying out its business on the application of private respondents and under what authority he is proceeding to issue such a letter/notice? As has been discussed earlier, the license has been issued on the application of Ramanjot Singh in the name of "M/s Ramanjot Singh & Company, Dhuri" to a different entity which has no relationship with the firm which has been constituted vide Annexure R-5, which is unregistered and provisions of Section 69 of the Act are applicable in the present case. Furthermore, the the letter Annexure P-6 which has been given by various persons addressed to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, bears the signatures of private respondents and mentions that some fraud has been committed by Ramanjot Singh & Company. From this, it is also clear that they are not claiming any right over Ramanjot Singh & Company rather they are claiming their rights ....