Anar Singh vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that the writ petitioner's application for withdrawal of his application and refund of fees was dated March 2, 2018, while the licence in his favour was issued on March 26, 2018. Therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner was exercising his option for withdrawal after the licence was issued. The Court directed the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, to take a decision in the matter in light of these observations, expeditiously, preferably within six to eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the entitlement to refund but remanded the matter for decision.
Facts
The writ petitioner, Anar Singh, sought a refund of the amount deposited for a liquor shop licence, asserting he never received the licence. The State-respondents, in their counter-affidavit, stated that a committee decision on June 28, 2018, allowed refunds for applicants seeking cancellation before licence issuance, after deducting processing fees and GST. However, they contended the petitioner was not entitled to a refund as his application for a wholesale beer licence (FL-2B) was accepted and the licence was issued in his name on March 26, 2018. The petitioner's withdrawal and refund application was dated March 2, 2018. The Court noted the petitioner's withdrawal application predated the licence issuance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount deposited for the liquor shop licence, considering his application for withdrawal was dated prior to the issuance of the licence in his favour. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he never received the licence and therefore, the State authority was unjustified in withholding the licence fee. He relied on the general decision of the committee to refund fees for cancelled applications before licence issuance. Respondent's contention: The State-respondents argued that the petitioner's application for withdrawal and refund was insignificant because his application for a wholesale beer licence had been accepted, and the licence was subsequently issued to him. They relied on the decision of the committee and the fact that the licence was issued after the withdrawal request.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 315 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.C. Tripathi, Standing Counsel Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that the writ petitioner is essentially seeking refund of the amount deposited by him for the purpose of grant of licence in his favour to run a liquor shop.
It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that he never received the licence to run the liquor shop and as such, there is no justification on the part of the concerned State authority for not refunding the licence fee.
The State-respondents in their counter affidavit have made the following statements in paragraph 6: 6. “That the contents of paragraph no.6 of the writ petition as stated are not correct and in reply it is stated that as various applicants who had applied for whole sale licences of liquor shops, for various reasons had applied for cancellation of their applications and were demanding the refund of the amounts deposited by them to
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.