TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Department of Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar, inviting applications for grant of Exclusive Privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor in PET bottles. The State was divided into 17 zones and the 17 lowest applicants in the financial bid would be eligible for grant of Exclusive Privilege in accordance with their preference to a particular zone. By an order dated 04.03.2014, Exclusive Privilege for manufacturing and supply of country liquor for zone 11 constituting the districts of Muzzafarpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar for the period between 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019 was awarded to M/s Riga Sugar Company Limited (hereinafter, 'the Respondent'). The base rate fixed for supply of 200 ML PET bottle of country liquor was fixed at Rs. 5.78/-. The difference between the base price and the bid price (in this case Rs. 4.07/-) calculated on the Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) was payable by the supplier to the Government in advance for a period of every three months i.e. on 15th March, 15th June, 15th September and 15th December. As per the tender conditions the supplier is required to obtain a licence in Form 27 for manufacture and supply of country liquor to Bihar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng stocks of all country liquor lying in the outlets as on 31.03.2016 shall be destroyed. 5. The Respondent submitted a representation seeking refund of the licence fee and differential amount for the period between 13.12.2015 to 04.02.2016 during which its manufacturing unit was closed. The Respondent quantified the amount of refund at Rs. 1,29,42,928/-. On 31.03.2016, a notification was issued implementing the New Excise Policy by imposing an absolute ban on manufacturing, bottling, distribution, sale, purchase, possession and consumption of country liquor w.e.f. 01.04.2016. 6. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court seeking a direction to the Appellants to refund the proportionate amount of licence fee calculated at the rate of Rs. 1/- per LPL on the Minimum Guaranteed Quantity of country liquor and the differential amount calculated on the Minimum Guaranteed Quantity of country liquor for the period between 13.12.2015 and 04.02.2016. 7. The High Court heard the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent along with three other Writ Petitions. It was held that there was an earlier adjudication that the sealing of the premises was wholly unjust and improper and hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use 22 of the licence to submit that the Respondent is not entitled for any compensation. In this regard, he also referred to Section 42 (4) of the Bihar Excise Act according to which the holder of a licence shall not be entitled for any compensation for its cancellation or its suspension. The said provision further contemplates that the licensee is not entitled for any refund of any fee or deposit made. It was further submitted by Mr. Singh that the High Court committed an error in taking up all the four Writ Petition together, especially when the facts are different. He also questioned the finding of the High Court that the showcause notice is necessary before an order of suspension was passed. 9. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the sealing order dated 13.12.2015 was set aside by the High Court by a judgment dated 25.01.2016 in CWJC No.1364 of 2016. The judgement has become final and necessarily the Respondent is entitled for refund of the licence fee and the deferential amount for the period between 13.12.2015 and 20.01.2016. The order dated 20.01.2016 by which the licence of Respondent was suspended was not brough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Guaranteed Quantity. A notice was issued to the Respondent on 15.07.2015 to deposit the advance of the differential amount upto that date as the Respondent failed to deposit earlier instalments of the differential amount. Consequently, the licence of the Respondent was suspended on 17.07.2015. The suspension was revoked on 20.07.2015. During the inspection conducted on 07.10.2015, it was discovered that the alcohol was substandard as the strength was higher than the prescribed strength of 60 degrees UP. The premises was sealed on 19.12.2015 and the Respondent received a show-cause notice dated 24.10.2015 to which he replied on 04.01.2016. After considering the response of the Respondent, an order was passed on 17.01.2016 suspending the licence which was challenged before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue stayed the order of suspension on 01.02.2016. Thereafter, the premises were un-sealed on 09.02.2016. The unit was closed for five days between 29.02.2016 to 04.03.2016 and for 15 days between 17.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 for non-payment of the outstanding amount and for short supply of country liquor. The New Excise Policy was implemented by a total ban on manufacturing of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding that the Respondent is entitled for refund i.e., on the ground of prior adjudication is not correct. The High Court erred in holding that no show-cause notices were issued before the orders of suspension and sealing of the premises were passed. The notices given on 15.07.2015, 24.12.2015, 25.02.2016 and 26.03.2016 would indicate that the Respondent was given sufficient opportunity. Moreover, in its response to show-cause notice dated 24.12.2015, the Respondent submitted his explanation in which there was an admission of production of substandard country liquor. The judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 7957 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3593 of 2019) (M/S Shipra Beverage Private Limited). 16. M/s Shipra Beverage Private Limited, the Respondent herein was granted Exclusive Privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor in zone-5 constituting Gaya and Aurangabad districts. An inspection was conducted on 04.01.2016 during which it was found that there is a deficit stock and there was violation of Clauses 2(d) (iii) and Clause 2(d) (ii) (f) of the letter of grant and Clause 9(f) of the Licence. A show-cause notice was ....