ORDER : K.S. HEMALEKHA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs : “Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari, by calling for the records pertaining to impugned demand notices No:EXE/UBM/AUDIT/01/2023-24 DATED 15.07.2024 (at Annexure A1), No.EXE/UBM/AUDIT /01/2023-24 dated 25.09.2024 (at Annexure A2), NO:SDK/02/AUDIT/UB/2023-24 dated 04.11.2024 (at Annexure A3) issued by respondent no.4 and respondent no.3, and after going into the legality and validity thereof, to quash the impugned demand notices, and forbear the respondents, their agents, servants and officers etc., from acting pursuant thereto, and pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 to withdraw the Impugned Demand Notices raised vide Letters No:EXE/UBM/AUDIT/01/2023-24 dated 15.07.2024 (at Annexure A1), No: EXE/UBM/AUDIT/01/2023-24 dated 25.09.2024 (at Annexure A2), No:SDK/02/AUDIT/UB/2023-24 dated 04.11.2024 (at Annexure A3) b) Pass any other order(s), such other order(s) and/or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice.” Brief facts: 2. Petitioner, United Breweries Limited, operates a licensed brewery at Baikampady, Mangalore, where all stages of manufacture, storage and dispatch of beer are carried out under the continuous physical supervision of the State Excise officials and the State Brewery Book and Stock Book are verified and countersigned by the Excise Department. For the excise period July 2017 to June 2018, the petitioner consumed 32,53,420 kgs of malt against the minimum statutory yield prescribed under Schedule A to Rule 3 of the Yield Rules, 6,500 litres of beer per 1,000 kgs of malt required production of 2,11,47,230 litres and the petitioner actually produced 2,66,34,500 litres which is well above the prescribed statutory minimum. 3. An audit was conducted by the Principal Accountant General and recorded that there is a short production of by improperly including adjuncts (rice, sugar, maize etc.,) in the yield formula. Based on the audit observation, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 issued demand notices dated 15.07.2024, 25.09.2024 and 04.11.2024 demanding ` 29,26,074,057/- without any enquiry. 4. 3. An audit was conducted by the Principal Accountant General and recorded that there is a short production of by improperly including adjuncts (rice, sugar, maize etc.,) in the yield formula. Based on the audit observation, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 issued demand notices dated 15.07.2024, 25.09.2024 and 04.11.2024 demanding ` 29,26,074,057/- without any enquiry. 4. Sri S.S.Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the impugned demand notices issued by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 are wholly without jurisdiction as Rule 7 of the Karnataka Excise (Regulation of Yield Production and Wastage of Spirit, Beer, Wine or Liquors) Rules, 1998 (‘Rules, 1998 for short), vests the adjudicatory power exclusively in the Excise Commissioner and there is no provision under Rule 7 to permit delegation and therefore the subordinate officers cannot assume or exercise such quasi-judicial authority. It is further contended that the excise period is July 2017 to June 2018, the statutory formula under Schedule A required a minimum yield of 6,500 litres of beer per 1,000 kilograms of malt and the petitioner used 32,53,420 kilograms of malt and mandatorily required to manufacture 2,11,47,230 litres. However the petitioner in fact produced 2,26,34,500 litres far exceeding the statutory minimum. Hence no shortfall existed either in fact or in law. It is submitted that the respondents erroneously attempted to compute minimum yield by including adjuncts such as rice, maize and sugar and therefore such inclusion came into statute only with effect from 01.07.2018 and not applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the audit computation is thus contrary to the statutory prescription and the respondents cannot travel beyond the four corners of the rule to allege a shortfall. It is submitted that the impugned notices have been mechanically issued based on an audit observation of the Principal Accountant General and such an audit report is only an internal observation, cannot have legal basis for initiating penal proceedings. Further, it is submitted that without affording an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Rule 7 and without disclosing reasons, the basis of quantification, the action therefore violates the principles of natural justice and fails the requirement of a reasoned order. Further, it is submitted that without affording an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Rule 7 and without disclosing reasons, the basis of quantification, the action therefore violates the principles of natural justice and fails the requirement of a reasoned order. It is submitted that the earlier decision of this Court in W.P. 26796 of 2019 and 28157 of 2023, wherein identical yield based demands raised against the petitioners, other breweries were quashed and contended that the respondents have acted in disregard to the binding precedent and breached the principles of judicial discipline. Further, the existence of an appeal under Section 68A does not bar the writ petition, as the impugned notices suffer from jurisdictional defect and violate natural justice and therefore falling within the well recognized exception to the rule of alternative remedy. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents, in support of the statement of objections filed, contends that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 68A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed in limine. It is the contention of the learned AGA that the amendment to Rule 3 introduced on 01.07.2018, whereby ‘adjuncts’ were included in the computation of minimum yield, is clarificatory in nature and merely codifies the existing administrative and technical practice. It is therefore contended that adjuncts can be considered even for a period prior to amendment and audit detected shortfall, is justified. It is submitted that the Excise Commissioner has delegated his powers under Rule 7 to the Deputy Commissioner and the respondent no. 3 has acted not suo motu, but in pursuance of the instruction issued by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned notices cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and the material placed on record. The primary issue that arises for consideration is, “whether the impugned demand notices issued by respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 are sustainable in law in light of the statutory framework under the Karnataka Excise Regulation of Yield, Production and Wastage of Spirit, Beer, Wine or Liquors , Rules, 1998 (Rules, 1998’ for short)?. 7. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1998 reads thus: “7. Penalty for failure to produce the minimum quantity. 3 and respondent no. 4 are sustainable in law in light of the statutory framework under the Karnataka Excise Regulation of Yield, Production and Wastage of Spirit, Beer, Wine or Liquors , Rules, 1998 (Rules, 1998’ for short)?. 7. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1998 reads thus: “7. Penalty for failure to produce the minimum quantity. - Where the Excise Commissioner on examination of the report of the Distillery Officer, if any and after holding such an enquiry as he deems fit, is of the opinion that there is no justifiable reason for the licensee to show such short production, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other rules, he may in lieu of cancellation or suspension of licence or forfeiture of security deposit.- (i) in the case of a spirit produced out of molasses, impose a fine equivalent to the rate of excise duty levied on brandy or whisky under the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) Rules, 1968 on such quantity of short production of spirit; (ii) in the case of beer, wine or other liquor impose a fine equivalent to the fee or excise duty leviable under the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) Rules, 1968 on such quantity of short production of beer, wine or other liquors: Provided that no such fine shall be imposed unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the aggrieved licensee: Provided further that no such fine shall be imposed if a licensee proves to the satisfaction of the Excise Commissioner that such short production is for reasons beyond the control of the licensee”. 8. The said Rule explicitly mandates that the determination of a short production and the imposition of any fine must be undertaken only by the Excise Commissioner, upon examination of the report of the Distillery Officer and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the concerned licensee. The rule does not provide for delegation nor does it authorise the subordinate officers to invoke or enforce it. Admittedly the impugned notices have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Deputy Superintendent of Excise, neither of whom possess the statutory authority to exercise the power under Rule 7. Thus, the impugned action suffers from fundamental jurisdictional defect rendering it void and unsustainable. 9. Admittedly the impugned notices have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Deputy Superintendent of Excise, neither of whom possess the statutory authority to exercise the power under Rule 7. Thus, the impugned action suffers from fundamental jurisdictional defect rendering it void and unsustainable. 9. With respect to the allegation of shortfall in production, the statutory prescription applicable to the relevant excise period July 2017 to June 2018 required the manufacturer to obtain a minimum of 6500 litres of beer for every 1000 kilograms of malt as per Schedule A under Rule 3. The petitioner had placed records demonstrating utilisation of 32,53,420 kgs of malt against which the required statutory minimum production was 2,11,47,230 litres. The petitioner in fact produced 2,66,34,500 litres far exceeding the prescribed minimum. Therefore on the administrative statutory no shortfall arises and the foundation for invoking Rule 7 is absent. The respondents have sought to compute the shortfall by including adjuncts such as rice, sugar and maize, although such methodology came into force only on the amendment to Rule 3 with effect from 01.07.2018. Before amendment, the rule contemplated only malt on the basis of the yield computation. Taxing and regulating statute must be enforced strictly and the authorities cannot travel beyond the express language of the rule. The computation based on adjuncts for the pre-amendment period is therefore contrary to law and cannot sustain a penal consequence. Rule 7 itself contains an express proviso that no fine shall be imposed unless an opportunity of being heard is afforded to the aggrieved licensee. When the Act provides that a particular act has to be done, in a particular manner, it has to be done mandatorily. In the present case, no such opportunity has been provided. The notices merely demand payment without disclosing the underlying reasons or basis for computation. In light of the above, this Court pass the following : ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notices dated 15.07.2024, 25.09.2024 and 04.11.2024 issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are one without jurisdiction and hence quashed. (iii) It is further held that for the relevant excise period 2017-2018 the minimum statutory yield was required to be computed solely with reference to ‘malt’, and the petitioner’s actual production having exceeded the statutory minimum, there existed no shortfall capable of attracting action under Rule 7 of the Rules. 3 and 4 are one without jurisdiction and hence quashed. (iii) It is further held that for the relevant excise period 2017-2018 the minimum statutory yield was required to be computed solely with reference to ‘malt’, and the petitioner’s actual production having exceeded the statutory minimum, there existed no shortfall capable of attracting action under Rule 7 of the Rules. (iv) Consequently, the consequential proceedings initiated thereunder are also quashed. (v) Liberty is reserved to the competent authority to proceed strictly in accordance with law.