JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.

2. This batch of civil appeals is directed against the judgment and orders of Rajasthan High Court in certain batches of special appeals. The point that arose in all the writ petitions (from which the special appeals arose) filed in the Rajasthan High Court was common viz., whether the short-lifting of liquor on the part of the writ petitioners/licensees during the year 1967-68 was on account of the default on their part or on account of the inability of the State to supply the requisite quantities of liquor. The writ petitions were disposed of in batches by learned Single Judges on different occasions against whose orders special appeals were filed by the aggrieved parties i.e., by the State in some cases and by the licensees in others.

3. The retail sale of country liquor in the State of Rajasthan is regulated by the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. Like every other excise Act, the Rajasthan Act also says that no person shall sell or other-wise deal in excisable articles including country liquor except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf and the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. During the year in question (1967-68) licences were granted under two different systems. One was called the Guarantee System provided in Chapter VII-A of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1955 and the other was Exclusive Privilege System governed by Chapter VII-B of the said Rules. Under the Guarantee System, the licensee guaranteed to draw from the Government Warehouse and sell, during that year, country liquor of a specified value, which was called the amount guaranteed. Under this system, the licensee was obliged to deposit 10 per cent of the amount of guarantee by way of security at the time of grant of licence. He was under an obligation to draw from the warehouse every month liquor equivalent in value to l/12th of the amount guaranteed and in case he failed to do so the amount of deficit could be recovered from out of the security deposit and also from his moveable and immovable properties. Under the Exclusive Privilege System, the licensee was granted exclusive privilege of selling country liquor by retail within a particular local area on condition of payment of lump sum, instead of or in addition to excise duty, as may be determined by the Excise Commissioner. Under this system too, the licensee was required to deposit 10 per cent of the said amount by way of security at the time of grant of licence. The total amount had to be deposited in 12 monthly instalments and he was entitled to draw liquor from the Government warehouse against the said deposits. Any amount not paid could be recovered as land revenue.

4. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1596 of 1969 Balmukund v. State of Rajasthan{W.P. (Civil) No. 1596 of 1969, decided on July 27, 1971 reported at 1972 Tax LR 2453} a learned Single Judge of the Rajas than High Court held that the State is not entitled to demand or recover the deficit amount from a licensee, whether under the Guarantee System or under Exclusive Privilege System, for the reason that such recovery would amount to recovery of Excise Duty on undrawn liquor. The said decision was reversed by a Division Bench which held that the amount agreed to be paid by the licensee is excise revenue as defined in Section 3(8) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and is recoverable as such. The judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by this Court in Pannalal v. State of Rajasthan{(1975) 2 SCC 633}.

5. The decision of this Court in Pannalal{(1975) 2 SCC 633} deals with several years including 1967-68 which is the year concerned herein. It was held by this Court that by enforcing the payment of guaranteed sum or the stipulated lump sum mentioned in the licences, the State does not purport to levy or recover excise duty. Excise duty, it was pointed out, is leviable on the manufacture of liquor and is recovered from the manufacturer. The lic