- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 5884 OF 2023 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: TAMARA LEISURE EXPERIENCES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, REGISTERED OFFICE NO.58, 15TH CROSS II PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078, RESORT ADDRESS KABBINAKADU ESTATE, NAPOKLU NAD, EVAKAPADI VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT, REP. BY MR. NAGARAJU KANISETTY, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SANDEEPANI A. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE] AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND EXCISE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE - KARNATAKA, TTMC 2ND FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KODAGU, D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 4 . THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, MADIKERI RANGE, D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.EXE/KO.J/IMAL/MDK/CL-6A/76/2018-19 DTD 18.01.2022, PASSED BY THE R-3 (ANNX-A), DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,00,000 FORTHWITH WITH CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT UNTIL THE DATE OF REFUND OF THE MONEY THAT THE PETITIONER PAID ON 26.09.2019 AND WHICH IS RECORDED IN ANNX-F1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (a) Quashing the impugned Order bearing No.EXE/Ko.J/IMAL/MDK/CL-6A/76/ 2018-19 dated 18.01.2022, passed by 3rd respondent (Annexure-A); (b) Directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.23,00,000/- forthwith with consequential interest, form the date of payment until the date of refund of the money, that the petitioner paid on 26.09.2019 and which is recorded in Annexure-F1; etc. 2. Sri Sandeepani A. Neglur, learned counsel appearing for Sri Sandeep Huilgol, advocate for petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 submitted that Tamara Real Estate Holding and Development Pvt. Ltd., was a company registered under Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated on 31.08.2005 as per Certificate of Incorporation at Annexure-B to do business of providing hospitality, food and beverage services. It had applied for Star Hotel Licence for sale of liquor at its premises and was granted CL-6A licence on 29.09.2012, as per Annexure-C. It was submitted, since then, petitioner applied for and got renewal of licence till date. 3. It was submitted in September 2017, petitioner obtained change of name of approval from ‘Tamara Real Estate Holding and Development Pvt. Ltd.’, to ‘Tamara Leisure Experiences Pvt. Ltd.,’ as indicated by certificate at Annexure-D. On 19.07.2018, petitioner informed respondent no.4 about change of its name and sought corresponding change in Excise Licence under letter at Annexure-E1. Same was also informed to Director of Excise, Madikeri Zone, as per Annexure-E2. It was submitted, in pursuance of a verbal direction by Additional Commissioner of Excise, petitioner remitted Rs.23,00,000/- on 26.09.2019 as transfer fee. It was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 submitted, payment of Rs.23,00,000/- was due to compulsion and lack of choice. 4. On 24.12.2019, respondent no.3 passed an order for change of name of petitioner under Rule 17-B of Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1967 (‘Rules’, for short) as per Annexure-J. Thereafter, petitioner addressed letter dated 30.07.2020 as per Annexure-K, requesting respondent no.3 seeking for refund of amount collected towards transfer fee by stating that there was only change of name of petitioner’s company, without any incidence of transfer of licence. 5. When same was not considered, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.no.21352/2021, which was disposed of on 26.11.2021 directing respondent no.3 to consider petitioner’s representation at Annexure-K within three months. In pursuance of said direction, respondent no.3 passed impugned order. It was submitted, there was no request transfer of licence from one Company to another, there was only change in name of same Company, which would not amount to transfer within meaning of Rule 17-B of Rules. It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 was submitted, under similar circumstances this Court in case of M/s. Mysore-Intercontinental Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excise, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2778, had held in case of a registered Company being licence holder, change in Board of Directors of said Company, would not amount to transfer and levy of transfer fee for same would not be sustainable. In view of impugned order was unsustainable and sought for its quashing. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on other hand, opposed petition. 7. Heard, learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition record. 8. From above, grant of CL-6A licence to ‘Tamara Real Estate Holding and Development Pvt. Ltd.’ as per Annexure-C, which is a registered Company is not in dispute. Filing of application by petitioner for change of name in licence, consequent upon change of name of Company approved by Registrar of Companies, as per Annexure-D to ‘Tamara Leisure Experiences Pvt. Ltd.’, is also not in dispute. Impugned order at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 Annexure-J came to be passed on consideration of this application. 9. Petitioner contends that it was not liable to pay transfer fee, as there was no request for transfer of licence from one person to another, but application was filed only for change of name in licence consequent upon change of name in certificate of incorporation of petitioner. Therefore, it was entitled for refund of transfer fee collected illegally. It contends, rejection of said request under order at Annexure-A as contrary to ratio in M/s. Mysore-Intercontinental Hotels Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra). 10. Perusal of impugned order at Annexure-A reveals that respondent no.3 took note of petitioner’s contention relying upon decision in M/s. Mysore-Intercontinental Hotels Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) and observed that said case did not involve change of name in licence, but, demand for payment of transfer fee was made, even when there was change in composition of Board of Directors. Insofar as petitioner's request for change of name in Excise licence, it referred to later decision of this Court in M/s. More Retail (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 Kar 15576, to hold that such application could be considered only under Rule 17-B of Rules, which mandated payment of twice amount of annual licence fee. Admittedly, petitioner paid same and obtained change of name. It is seen, this Court in M/s. Mysore-Intercontinental Hotels Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), held: "5. The case in hand before this Court is relating to a Private Limited Company. Definitely there is no “transfer” of Excise Licence within the meaning of Rule 17-B, when the composition of the Board of Directors of the Limited company changes, which is quite independent and separate from the body corporate itself. The question of levy of transfer fees in such cases will not arise. It may arise only if Excise Licence is transferred by one limited company to another limited company." 11. Admittedly, in above matter, this Court was deciding on legality of demand for transfer fee from petitioner Company therein, in view of change in composition of its Directors and 'it was not a case of change of name in licence'. Observation that requirement of payment of transfer fee would arise only if Excise Licence is transferred by one limited company to another limited company, cannot be taken as declaration of law or elucidation of meaning of Rule 17-B of Rules, as said question did not arise therein. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31154 WP No. 5884 of 2023 12. On other hand, in M/s. More Retail (P) Ltd.’s case (supra), on examination of Rules, this Court held there was no provision for permitting change of name in licence, except under Rule 17-B of Rules. 13. Admittedly, petitioner has applied for under said provision, paid necessary fee therefore and obtained benefit of change of name. There is no material produced to establish that petitioner was compelled to pay it. 14. In view of above, petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24