Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1975 (4) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , under Article 133 and disputes the correctness of the view accepted by the High Court. As is obvious, the facts are brief and beyond dispute, the issue of law straight and simple and our decision, on a careful study of the alternative constructions of the relevant provision, is that the State is entitled to collect the fee on the revised scale. The respondent runs a cafe at Indore and a foreign liquor bar booths expensive sales and attracts affluent addicts. Naturally, as a profitable proposition the respondent obtained a licence for the sale of foreign liquor (in Form -F, L. 3) issued under the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Excise Act. 1915 Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (Act II of 1915).The licence which he held was for one ye .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the stand that the balance stock had already been subjected to licence fee when it was brought in and that the subsequent raising of the rate of licence fee could not be applied validly to such stocks. Since the State insisted on levying at the larger rate even on the balance stock held on March 31, 1964 the respondent moved the High Court for the issuance of a writ quashing the demand as illegal. The legality of the levy depends on the applicability of the enhanced scales of licence fee to the balance of foreign liquor stock held by the licensee on the midnight of 31/3-1/4/1964. The facts being thus plain, we will straight go to the law relied on by the State in support of its claim. The Excise Act and the Foreign Liquor Rules made thereu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n drawn to Sections 62(g) and (h) and 63 in this connection, by counsel for the State. The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act (Section 62). Such rules may regulate the amount of fee, the terms and conditions of licences and the scale of fees and the manner of fixing the fees payable in respect of such licences [62(g) and (h)]. This provision, by itself, does not expressly grant power to make retrospective rules. But Section 63 specifically states that 'all rules made and notifications issued under this Act shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall have effect from the date of such publication or from such other date as may be specified in that behalf.' Clearly the Legislatur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ified and the District Excise Officer may order that the difference of duty be levied on the balance of the stocks, and the licensee shall then pay such duty within thirty days of the date on which the enhanced rate of duty comes into force : (a) Provided that if such stock; or part of such stock, be destroyed, the difference of duty shall not be levied on the stock destroyed; and (b) Provided also that if the balance of stock so deposited is transferred to another licensed vendor, the difference of duty shall be levied from the transferee before the transfer is completed. The above procedure regarding the deposit and verification of stock of intoxicants consequent on the enhancement of duty shall also apply when duty leviable on any int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e retrospective and the State Government cannot therefore make rules and give effect to them retroactively. We have already set out the provisions of Sections 62 and 63 bearing on the subject and have no doubt that, in the present case, the statute does authorise the State, as its delegate, to make retroactive rules. Therefore we negative the contention that the enhanced levy of licence fee cannot operate as from April 1, 1964. The second contention which has found favour with the High Court is that the balance on hand on March 31, 1964 is covered by the license fee already paid and cannot therefore be subjected to the enhanced levy on April 1, 1964. There is a measure of absurdity in the rule, if this be the construction. Indeed, the High .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates