SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY C.J.I., R.S. SARKARIA, P.N. SHINGHAL AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Excise Commissioner U.P. Allahabad etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Ram Kumar etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 276-395 and 397-404 of 1975
Decided on 5-5-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen. Sr. Advocate, and Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him. for Appellant; Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad Adv., Mr. S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, Advocates, (in C. A. Nos. 399, 400-404 of 1075) and Miss Kamlesh Bansal, Advocate, (in Civil Appeals Nos. 310, 312, 238, 403, 357 and 313 of 1975), and Mr. L. C. Goyal, Advocate, in C. A. No. 396 of 1975, for Respondents.
State of Uttar Pradesh has, under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 - Sections 24, 31, 33 , 28 , 17,, 13, 12 (1), 40 and 41 U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 - Import, export - Sale possession - Permit or pass granted - State of Uttar Pradesh has, under U. P. Excise Act, 1910 contains provisions relating to all aspects and manifestations of intoxicating liquors and intoxicating drugs, that is to say, their import, export, transport manufacture, sale possession, exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor in State. Section 24 of Act lays down that subject to provisions of Section31, the Excise Commissioner may grant to any person a licence for exclusive privilege – Held, Court was clearly in error in ignoring Government cannot divest itself of the right incidental to its office by conduct which, in case of private person, would amount to estoppel and in characterizing the demand for sales tax made by appellants as illegal. Accordingly Appeals No. 399 to 404 of 1975 are partly allowed, and it is held demand made by the appellants from the respondents in these appeals in respect of sales tax on the turnover of sales of country spirit made by them between April 2, 1969 and March 31, 1970 was valid and could not struck down – Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT
JASWANT SINGH, J. :— This batch of 128 appeals by special leave which are directed against various judgments rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in writ petitions and special appeals and relate to enforcement of certain obligations of licenses for retail vend of country liquor shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are : The State of Uttar Pradesh has, under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 (Act No. IV of 1910) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which contains provisions relating to all aspects and manifestations of intoxicating liquors and intoxicating drugs, that is to say, their import, export, transport manufacture, sale possession, the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor in that State. Section 24 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of Section31, the Excise Commissioner may grant to any person a licence for the exclusive privilege-
(1) of manufacturing of or supplying by wholesale, or of both; or
(2) of selling by wholesale or by retail; or
(3) of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale, or of both and of selling by retail; any country liquor or intoxicating drug within any local area.
3. Section 31 provides that every licence, permit or pass granted under the Act shall be granted-
(a) on payment of such fees (if any);
(b) subject to such restrictions and as on such conditions;
(c) shall be in such form and contain such particulars, as the Excise Commissioner may direct either generally or in any particular instance in this behalf; and
(d) shall be granted for such period as the State Government may, in like manner, direct.
4. Section 33 of the Act invests the authority granting a licence under the Act to require the grantee to execute a counterpart agreement in conformity with the tenor of his licence and to give such security for the performance of such agreement or to make such deposit in lieu of stet as such authority may think fit.
5. Section 28 of the Act which deals with imposition of excise duty or countervailing duty reads:-
"28. (1) Duty on excisable article. -An excise duty or a countervailing duty, as the case may be, at such rate or rates as the Local Government shall direct, may be imposed, either generally or for specified local area, on any excisable article-
(a) imported in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 (1); or
(b) exported in accordance with the provisions of Section 13; or
(c) transported; or
(d) manufactured, cultivated or collected under any licence granted under Section 17; or
(e) manufactured in any distillery established, or any distillery or brewery licensed, under Section 18: ........"
6. Section 29 of the Act lays down the manner in which the duty may be levied. One of the ways provided in the section for levy of the duty is by payment upon issue for sale from a warehouse established or licensed under Section 18 (d) of the Act.
7. Sections 40 and 41 of the Act empower the State Government and the Excise Commissioner (subject to the previous sanction of the Government) to make rules for the purposes set out therein. These rules are contained in the Excise Manual, Uttar Pradesh (Volume I).
8. Paragraph 38 of the Excise Manual shows that there are four licence-fee systems in vogue in the State of Uttar Pradesh. One of such systems is "The auction fee systems under which the amount of licence fees inter alia for the retail sale of country spirit under the distillery system and for the manufacture and retail sale of country spirit under the outstill systems is determined by competition among bidders. According to paragraph 332 licences for the wholesale and retail vend of intoxicants are usually granted for the excise year which commences from April 1 and lasts upto March 31.
9. In accordance with the requirements of the auction system, auctions were held throughout Uttar Pradesh during the months of February and March, 1969 on various dates and at various places for the grant of licences to sell cou
followed : Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of M. P.
distinguished : Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property v.Brij Kishore Agarwala
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.