Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1979 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1979 (12) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURTWhether the imposition of vend fee on denatured spirit for grant of license for wholesale vend of denatured spirit is within the competence of State ? Held that:- The provisions in the Act which provided for a levy on retail vend of foreign liquor was held to be valid. The power to legislate under List II Entry 8 relating to intoxicating Liquor comprises of liquor which contains alcohol whether it is potable or not. The power of the State Legislature to legislate in respect of the intoxicating liquor and its exclusive right regarding intoxicating liquor cannot be questioned. The purpose of introduction of Act 5 of 1976 was to make it clear that U.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 1972 shall be deemed to and always to have been valid. In view of our findings that U.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 1972 was valid, the effect of U.P. Act 5 of 1976 is to remove all doubts and to give retrospective effect. Unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that specially denatured spirit for industrial purpose is different from the ordinary denatured spirit. The definition of alcohol under rule 12 includes both ordinary as well as specially denatured spirit. It is true that the stand taken by the Government in the earlier proceedings was different but that would not make any difference so long as the Government had a right to impose the levy. It has been found that after the addition of S. 24A by Act 30 of 1972, the Commissioner was entitled to accept payment for conferring the privilege which the State owned exclusively. The conditions relating to grant of a licence for issue of denatured spirit for industrial purpose are laid down in rule 4. Special conditions regarding licence in form F.L. 39, 40 and 41 are prescribed in rule 5. The appellants/petitioners having applied for and obtained licences in form F.L. 39 are bound to comply with the conditions. Act 5 of 1976 has been given retrospective effect as the levy imposed under Act 30 of 1972 was found to be illegal and unsustainable by the Allahabad High Court which was reversed by this Court by giving retrospective effect, the State has only restored the status quo enabling the collection of the levy validly made by Act 30 of 1972. On the facts of the case there could be no complaint because what is sought to be collected is levy which was legally made.
|