SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S.M. SIKRI, R.S. BACHAWAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
M/s. Shinde Brothers, etc., Appellants
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and others, etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1580-1586, 1588 and 1590-1600 of 1966,
D/- 26-9-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. R. Venkatesa Iyer, Advocate and M/s. O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellants (In C. As. Nos 1580 to 1586 and 1588 of 1966)
Mr. M. K. Nambyar, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. R. Venkatesa Iyer, Advocate and M/s. O. C. Mathur, J B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain. Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 1590-1594, 1596 and 1599-1600 of 1966).
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. R. Venkatesa Iyer, Advocate and M/s. O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellants (In C. As. Nos. 1597 and 1598 of 1966).
M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri, S. P. Satyanarayana Rao and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, Advocates, for Appellant (In C. A. No. 1595 of 1966).
Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, for Respondents (In C. As. Nos. 1580 to 1586, 1588 and 1595 of 1966).
M/s. R. H. Gokhale and B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocates, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondent (In C. As. Nos. 1590 to 1600 of 1966).
-held, it is immaterial whether levy is imposed at the moment of production or later on.
-held, ‘cess’ is a tax generally levied for meeting special administrative expenses which the name of cess indicate.
Judgment
SIKRI, J. (For himself, K. Subba Rao, CJI. and Raghubar Dayal, J.) : These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore, dated November 17, 1965, disposing of 49 petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court disposed of the petitions by one common judgment as identical questions of law were involved in all of them. We will also dispose of these appeals by this judgment because they raise substantially identical questions of law. These appeals may however, be divided into two groups, one dealing with the licences for the sale of Toddy and the other dealing with the licences for the sale of arrack.
2. We may give the facts in one appeal, Civil Appeal No. 1590 of 1966, arising out of Writ Petition No. 1076 of 1964. The appellant, M/s. Guruswami and Co.-hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-filed writ petition alleging that the firm was a licensed Excise contractor with its principal office at Bangalore, and that it had been the licensee of the Bangalore Urban group of 26 shops for the year July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. The petitioner continued to be the licensee for the same group of shops with five more new shops to be opened for two more years, viz., 1964-65 and 1965-66. The petitioner paid shop rent or the kist for this group of toddy shops amounting to Rs. 3,61,116 a month during the year 1963-64 and Rs. 4,41,216 a month for the next two years. This kist amount was determined at the tender-cum-auction sale of the exclusive privilege of vending toddy in the shops of this group during the relevant period. The petitioner paid amount equal to two months kist as initial and security deposit for each of these years. It was further stated that notice was given under the notification, dated April 20, 1963, that the exclusive privilege of selling country liquors during the twelve months, beginning from July 1, 1963, and ending with June 30, 1964, in the shops or groups of shops specified in Schedules I and II of the notifications, situated in the district of Bangalore will be disposed of by tender-cum-auction by the Deputy Commissioners of the respective districts or other officers specially empowered by the Deputy Commissioners for the purpose. The notification, in Para. 16, mentioned rates of duty, price, etc., on the several kinds of excisable articles. For instance, on molasses arrack 350 U.P. the duty was Rs. 2.73 per litre, price Rs. 0.55 per litre and the minimum retail selling price Rs. 0.61 per decilitre. Under the head Toddy is given:
Tree tax per tree
"1. Date .. Rs 7.50.
2. Coconut.. Rs. 8.50 (per each half-year ending December and June)."
Then the minimum selling price of toddy is prescribed. It was further stated in Para. 25 of the notification as follows:-
"25. For the shops of Bangalore North and South Taluks, City and Civil Area, tapping may be allowed in such areas of Tumkur and Hassan Districts or other Districts as may be notified by the Excise Commissioner and the areas so notified may at any time be altered by notification by the Excise Commissioner.
For shops of Taluks of Bangalore, Rural District, similar facilities may be given if found necessary."
Paragraph 18 of the notification further provided that "sales tax and octroi at the prescribed rates and other taxes that may be levied under any other law shall also be payable."
3. The petitioner further alleged that he was paying tree rent to the owners of toddy-yielding trees for allowing him to draw toddy from the trees. The petitioner also paid education and health cess at the prescribed rates in pursuance of the condition in Para. No. 17 of the aforesaid notification.
4. A similar notification was issued on April 27, 1964, for the sale of excise privileges for 1964-65, and alternatively for 1964-66. It was mentioned in Para. 18 of this notification that health cess at the rate of nine naye paise per rupee shall also be payable on the shop rent and tree tax on toddy and other duties of excise levied on the
referred to : Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commr. and the Chief Commr., Ajmer
relied on : A. B. Abulcadi and other v. state of kerala and another
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.