Posts

Section 31 (1) (b) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 - selling non-duty paid beer - stock seized and license was suspended pending enquiry - Writ filed as a peremptory finding was recorded before enquiry - their lordships held that However, in the immediate next sentence he has stated as under:"Thus it calls for initiation of departmental action under Section 31 (1) (b) A.P.Excise Act, 1968, pending further enquiry in the public interest." - dismissed the writ = N.Malla Reddy The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent,Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.S.Niranjan Reddy for Mr.P.Sri Harsha Reddy = 2013 (March. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9743

Sec. 52 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Rule 2 (3) of A.P. Excise (Powers and Duties) Rules, 1972 - Head constable seized the stock of licensed complaint shop - Only above the rank of circle inspector authorised under Act to seized and enter the shop - Writ petition allowed and whole proceedings are quashed = Kundarapu Krishna, S/o. Yadagiri, Aged about 25 years, Business, R/o.Chintalpally village, Sangem Mandal,Warangal District, A-4 licensee of M/s. Sri Sai Wines at H. No.3-143/6, Sangem (V) & (M), Warangal District 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its S.H.O. PS. Sangem, Warangal District through P.P. of High Court. 2. Y. Rajendra Prasad, Head Constable (HC No.1402),PS Sangem, Warangal district = 2011 (Dec. Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=8818

sec. 47 -A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 - licence holder - seized stock is a duty paid one - The only ground on which the beer was seized is that the stock was not handed over at the petitioner's shop premises but the same was being transported to a different place at Huzurnagar side. - Where the Commissioner is satisfied that the offence is not grave in nature, he can either levy compounding fee or collect the value of the seized stock. - collecting both is illegal - Writ allowed - I am of the opinion that the condition directing payment of the value of the seized duty paid liquor, is wholly irrational and unreasonable. Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of stipulating the condition of payment of the value of the seized stock, is set-aside. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.78,953/- representing the value of the seized stock, to the petitioner. = M/s. Siddivinayaka Wines,Nalgonda, represented by its licencee N. Veera Reddy The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,Nampally, Hyderabad and others = 2011 (Nov. Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=8511

Dakarapu Lakshmana Swamy..Appellant Maddula Narasimha Rao and others....Respondents = 2014 (March. Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11040