- (1.) The present intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision dated 23.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.854 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the demand of the differential amount of the license fee for the period 2004-05 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- as demanded by the respondents vide decision as contained in Memo No.299 dated 11.02.2010 has been quashed and set aside to the extent related to the period 2004-05. So far as the period from the year 2005-06 to the period 2009-10 are concerned, the demand of differential amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been upheld.
(2.) Before entering into the factual dispute it is relevant to enumerate some factual aspect which is the subject matter of the lis. The appellant-writ petitioner had made an application for running a Bar-cum-Restaurant within Chas sub-division of Bokaro District in the name and style of "Taste Paradise" and hence applied for issuance of license in due format as contained under Form 9 & 10 which was issued in favour of the appellant/writ-petitioner after proper verification for the year 2002-03 on depositing required annual license fee of Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, the license was renewed for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 on depositing annual license fee of Rs.1,00,000/- which was the license fee prevalent during the relevant periods. The respondent-State came out with a substituted rule, Rule 107 on 31.07.2004, that was during the subsistence period of license, i.e., 2004-05, in exercise of power conferred under Section 90 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1915) by which the license fee for retail sale of India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) had been revised. The respondent authorities, in view of such substitution of the Rule, after verification, fixed the license fee for the period 2005-06 at Rs.2,00,000/-, which had been deposited by the appellant/writ-petitioner and got his license renewed for the period 2005-06 but subsequently vide Memo No.1737 dated 18.10.2005, the appellant/writ-petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- more as the respondent No.5 considered the said Bar and Restaurant of the appellant/writ-petitioner situated within the town area of Bokaro and thus, as per Memo No.1142(B) dated 31.07.2004, the appellant/writ-petitioner had been held liable to pay license fee of Rs.5,00,000/- for the period 2005-06. The appellant/writ-petitioner, being aggrieved with the said demand notice moved before the Commissioner of Excise, Jharkhand, Ranchi by filing Misc. Case No.03 of 2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2006. The appellant/writ-petitioner had preferred revision before the Member Board of Revenue under the power conferred under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1915 being Board Case No.119 of 2006, the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2007 setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner Excise and directed the respondent No.5 to raise the demand of license fee from the appellant/writ-petitioner strictly in accordance with the amended Rule 107. The respondent No.5, in pursuance to the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue on 30.03.2007, has renewed the license of the appellant/writ-petitioner to run the Bar and Restaurant for the year 2007-08 after deposit of annual license fee @ Rs.2,00,000/- but subsequent thereto, a demand notice was issued on 11.02.2010 whereby and whereunder the appellant/writ-petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.13,00,000/- by 25.02.2010 in one lump sum as a difference of license fee for the period of 2004-05 to 2009- 10, failing which the same would be realized with interest as Government dues. The appellant/writ-petitioner against the aforesaid order has preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition vide decision dated 23.03.2018 had set aside the demand pertaining to the period of 2004-05 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- but so far as the period from 2005-06 to the period from 2009-10, the differential amount which was to be paid by the writ petitioner, has been upheld, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.;