JUDGMENT N.K. Sodhi, J. - Questions which arise for our consideration in this bunch of eleven writ petitions 678 to 683, 1115, 1807, 1862, 1864 and 2905 of 2000 already stand answered in favour of the petitioners and against the Revenue by our order passed M/s. Naresh Kumar & Co. and others v. Union of India and other, Civil Writ Petition 15583 of 1999, decided on 22.2.2000. 2. What is now pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the Income Tax Department is that the main case of M/s. Naresh Kumar & Company v. U.O.I. pertained to the Union Territory of Chandigarh where L-14A licenses and L. 13 licenses are granted to different persons whereas in some other writ petitions decided alongwith M/s Naresh Kumar & Companys case (supra) as also in some of the writ petitions presently under out consideration L-14A licensees and L-13 licensees are the same persons and it is, therefore, urged that there can be no question of any subsequent sale being made by L-13 licensees to the L-14A licensees in such cases. It is thus contended that our judgment in M/s. Naresh Kumar & Companys case (supra) holding that L-14A licensees being subsequent buyers of alcoholic liquor from L-13 licensees were not buyers within the meaning of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) requires reconsideration. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. When M/s. Naresh Kumar & Companys case (supra) was argued alongwith others it was never brought to our notice that L-14A licensees and L- 3 licensees in any of those cases were the same persons. We proceeded in those cases on the basis that holders of the two licenses were different persons. However, if in any of those cases the two licenses are found to be held by the same person then L-14A licensee will not be considered as a buyer in further sale of goods so as to be excluded from the definition of buyer as given in the Explanation to Section 206C of the Act and to that extent our previous judgment stands clarified. This clarification, in any case, does not affect the findings recorded by us in M/s Naresh Kumar & Companys case (supra) that the Excise & Taxation Commissioner who issued L-14A licences to the petitioners in an open auction was not the seller within the meaning of Section 206C of the Act and, therefore, he was not required to collect 10% of the licence fee as income tax at source. We had also held that the amount payable in Section 206C of the Act does not include the licence fee which has to be paid by a licensee to the State Government. 3. Now coming to the present writ petitions. The petitioners herein are L-14A licences from whom 10% of the licence fee is sought to be collected as income tax at source under section 206C of the Act. Shri Sawhney learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Department has again raised the plea that some of the writ petitioners hold both L-14A and L-13 licences. In pursuance to our directions, the petitioners have filed affidavits stating that in some of the cases the names of the firms may be the same but their partners are different and that they are separate legal entities. It is not necessary for us to adjudicate on this factual dispute as we are of the view that these writ petitions too have to be allowed for the other two reasons given by us while deciding M/s Naresh Kumar & Companys case (supra). It is, therefore, not necessary for us to decide in the present cases whether the petitioners are buyers in further sale of goods of the nature specified in the table referred to in sub section (1) of Section 206C of the Act. 4. For the reasons recorded in our earlier order in M/s. Naresh Kumar & Company case (Supra), we hold that the Excise & Taxation Commissioner is not a seller within the meaning of Section 206C of the Act and that the amount sought to be collected from the petitioners as tax at source is not the amount payable within the meaning of that provisions and, therefore, the Excise & Taxation Commissioner could not recover 10% the licence fee as income tax at source. 5. 5. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices issued by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner quashed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.