TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11,020/- recovered from the shop of the petitioner at the time of survey conducted by the respondent authorities on 28.5.17. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted/issued the licence to run the country liquor shop No., Baznakta No.1, District Kushinagar by the licencing authority for the period 2017-18. The petitioner has deposited the licence fee as well as the basic licence fee and the security demanded by the respondents. A search was conducted by the excise authorities at the shop of the petitioner on 18.5.17 in which certain discrepancies were noticed and, therefore, the seizure order has been passed on 18.05.17. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no copy of seizure memo was provided to the petitioner and, in fact, it is for the first time is placed by means of the counter affidavit as Annexure C.A.-6. In the seizure memo, the authorities have given the details of the quantity and variety of liquor recovered from the petitioner's shop which are mentioned as 16 boxes of liquor manufactured "MR.LIME" brand, 9 boxes of liquor manufactured "LAILA BRAND", 2 boxes "KATREENA BRAND", 2 boxes "BANTI BABLI BRAND" and 4 boxes of &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tching with each other. The order of cancellation of licence dated 31.5.17 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 11(1) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 before the Commissioner Excise (licencing and industrial development) U.P. Allahabad. The appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner and after hearing the parties at length and after examining the issue raised by the petitioner, that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, the appellate authority has concluded that the order of cancellation of licence passed by the licencing authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law as such has set aside the order of cancellation of licence. The appellate authority has directed the Collector/licensing authority to re-examine the issue and to provide personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 19.7.17. Without waiting the decision of licencing authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of Writ Tax No.534 of 2017. The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a licencee of cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... again approached this Court by means of Writ Tax No.591 of 2017 by which he has brought to the notice of this Court that even after the order of the Additional Commissioner setting aside the order dated 31.5.17 and the order passed by this Court in Writ Tax No.534 of 2017, the District Magistrate has passed the order dated 18.8.17 by which he has reiterated his previous order of cancellation of licence dated 31.5.17. This Court has examined the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that there was no justification on the part of licencing authority to reiterate his order dated 31.5.17. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 18.8.17 was quashed with a direction to the licencing authority to pass a fresh order on each and every issue of the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any outside pressure as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of an authentic copy of the order dated 24.08.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the order dated 24.8.2017, the petitioner has approached the licencing authority/District Magistrate, Kushinagar but he has refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1,46,65,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason recorded by the Commissioner cannot be a ground to uphold the order of cancellation of licence. Against the order passed by the Commissioner Excise, a revision under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 was filed before the Special Secretary, State of U.P. The revision filed by the petitioner was heard by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., who vide his order dated 19.7.18 has dismissed the revision and has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, Excise. The present writ petition is against the order dated 19.7.18 passed by the Special Secretary, State of U.P. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner was a licensee to run a country liquor shop being Country Liquor Shop No.1, District Kushinagar. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to refund the basic licence fee as well as security money deposited by the petitioner. The seizure proceedings was carried out and during the course of seizure proceedings, certain material was found which was not matching with the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner. The contention of learned co....