THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.16533 of 2009 DATED: 12.08.2009 Between: K.Narayana Rao. .. Petitioner. And The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: According to the petitioner, pursuant to the application submitted by him for grant of licence to run a Bar under the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, the then Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Chodavaram, has granted licence in Form 2-B in his favour to run the Bar under the name and style of M/s Sri Kala Restaurant & Bar at Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, for the Excise lease period 2006- 07, and thereafter the same has been renewed for the Excise year 2007-08. While so, the 3rd respondent has issued notice, dated 08.05.2009, whereby he levied and demanded the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,000/-, by challan, for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 towards additional licence fee, on the ground of noticing one additional enclosure in the petitioner’s licenced premises. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for the respondents. Apparently, the impugned notice dated 08.05.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent though appears as a notice, it is virtually an order, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay additional licence fee of Rs.3,01,000/-. In the instant case, when the respondents required the petitioner to pay the demanded amount under the impugned notice, they ought to have put the petitioner on prior show-cause notice before seeking such demand. Since the impugned demand is not preceded by a show-cause notice and opportunity to the petitioner to explain against the proposed levy, this Court is of the view that the impugned notice dated 08.05.2009 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner need not pay the demanded amount. However, instead of setting aside the impugned notice and directing the 3rd respondent to issue a fresh show-cause notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is hereby directed to treat the impugned notice dated 08.05.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent as a show-cause notice and offer his explanation thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on submitting such explanation by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner on the ground that the additional licence fee, as demanded in the impugned notice, is not paid by the petitioner.” With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 12.08.2009 v v