HomeIndirect TaxesKarnataka High Court Directs Excise Dept. to Decide Application for Transfer of...

Karnataka High Court Directs Excise Dept. to Decide Application for Transfer of CL-9 Bar Licence Based on Registered Will

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Excise authorities to consider, in accordance with law, a representation seeking transfer of a CL-9 bar licence from the name of a deceased licence holder to the petitioners on the basis of a registered Will. 

The bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti has observed that directed that the representation be considered after due notice to all concerned parties, thereby requiring the administrative decision-making process to take place after giving the affected parties an opportunity to participate.

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to consider and dispose of their application concerning transfer of a CL-9 bar licence in Form CL-9 for the excise year 2025-26.

Buy Now: JurisHour Ultimate Legal Research Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines at an Unbeatable Price

The licence in question was standing in the name of late Smt. Premamma V. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to have the licence transferred in their favour on the basis of a registered Will executed in their favour. The application related to licence registration No. BURI3521-ARVB and the corresponding RVB licence bearing the same register number.

The petitioners approached the High Court principally because their representation seeking the transfer had remained pending before the Excise authorities.

The petitioners specifically sought consideration of their representation dated March 30, 2026. They also sought a declaration that the failure of the authorities to consider the application was arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Constitution.

Apart from seeking consideration of their representation, the petitioners requested that the authorities be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after providing them an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the applicable Rules.

Thus, the immediate grievance before the High Court was not a final adjudication of entitlement to the licence transfer, but the alleged failure of the competent Excise authorities to take a decision on the pending representation.

The petitioners submitted that a representation had been made seeking transfer of the CL-9 licence standing in the name of the late licence holder in favour of the petitioners on the strength of the registered Will. It was argued that the authorities had failed to consider the representation.

The State was represented by the Additional Government Advocate. Upon taking notice on behalf of the respondent authorities, the AGA submitted that the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

This undertaking by the State became central to the disposal of the writ petition.

After hearing both sides and examining the material placed on record, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti noted that the representation was pending before the respondent authorities.

The Court consequently directed the respondents to consider the representation dated March 30, 2026 in accordance with law and after issuing due notice to all concerned parties.

The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition. It did not itself order transfer of the CL-9 licence or determine the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to the licence. Instead, the Court left the question to be considered by the competent Excise authorities in accordance with the governing law.

An important aspect of the order is that the High Court did not pronounce upon the validity or enforceability of the registered Will for the purpose of transferring the excise licence. The Court’s direction was confined to requiring the competent authorities to consider the pending representation according to law.

Consequently, the order does not by itself confer the CL-9 licence upon the petitioners. The substantive question of whether the licence can legally be transferred on the basis of the registered Will remains for determination by the Excise authorities.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: GST Notices Can’t Be Deemed Served Merely by Portal Upload: Delhi High Court Grants Relief in Batch of 48 Petitions

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Dept. Can’t Force Assessee to Adopt More Punitive CENVAT Credit Option Under Rule 6: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals challenging the CESTAT order that...

S. 74 GST Notice Must Spell Out Statutory Ingredients for Invoking Extended Tax Demand Proceedings: Allahabad High Court 

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed a show cause notice issued under...

DGGI Online Gaming Probe | GST Arrest Can’t Be Invalidated Merely Because Maximum Punishment Is 5 Years: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging an arrest made...

Can Dept. Reopen GST Proceedings Within 2 Years of High Court Order? Allahabad HC Interprets S. 75(3)

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a fresh show cause notice issued under...

More like this

Dept. Can’t Force Assessee to Adopt More Punitive CENVAT Credit Option Under Rule 6: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals challenging the CESTAT order that...

S. 74 GST Notice Must Spell Out Statutory Ingredients for Invoking Extended Tax Demand Proceedings: Allahabad High Court 

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed a show cause notice issued under...

DGGI Online Gaming Probe | GST Arrest Can’t Be Invalidated Merely Because Maximum Punishment Is 5 Years: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging an arrest made...