1. Challenge to the validity of Rule 6 (39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules concerning the binding nature of current and future rules. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1071
SUPREME COURT OF INIDA
C. M. JOSEPH
Versus
STATE OF KERALA
Decided on : July 11, 2000
Important Points
Licensee bound by rules under the abkari Act
Subject
Administrative Law - Regulatory Compliance
Act Referred
ABKARI SHOPS DISPOSAL IN AUCTION RULES: R.6(39)
Headnote
Rule 6 (39) - Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules - The court upheld the validity of Rule 6 (39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules, stating that the licensee shall be bound by all the rules passed under the abkari Act. The court distinguished a previous case and dismissed the special leave petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The court upheld the validity of Rule 6 (39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules, stating that the licensee shall be bound by all the rules passed under the abkari Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in Rule 6 (39) and distinguished a previous case to dismiss the special leave petitions.
Issues: Validity of Rule 6 (39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules
Ratio Decidendi: The licensee shall be bound by all the rules passed under the abkari Act.
Final Decision: The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
regulatory law
-
excise law
- licensing rules (Para 1)
-
excise law
-
regulatory law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended that Rule 6 (39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules is bad in law. (Para 1 )
3. The court found no infirmity in the rule and held that petitioners cannot impugn rules existing at the time of license grant. (Para 1 )
4. A licensee is bound by rules in existence at the time of license grant and any subsequent rules made under the governing Act. (Para 1 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed. (Para 1 )
6. Can a licensee challenge a rule that was already in existence when the license was granted?
No, the court held that petitioners cannot be allowed to impugn a rule that was already in existence at the time the license was granted. (Para 1 )
7. Is a rule requiring licensees to be bound by future rules made under a governing Act valid?
Yes, the court found no infirmity in a rule stating that a licensee shall be bound by all rules passed under the Act and those that may hereafter be made. (Para 1 )
8. When does the State's acceptance of a High Court's decision prevent the imposition of taxes or interest?
When the State accepts the law declared by the High Court, it cannot subsequently impose sales tax or demand interest based on that specific legal position. (Para 1 )
( 1 ) WE have heard learned Senior Counsel at length. We do not agree with the contention that Rule 6 (39) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) rules is bad in law. The said Rule was in existence at the time when the licence was granted to the petitioners and the High Court has rightly observed that the petitioners cannot be allowed to impugn the same. In any event, we do not find any infirmity in the said Rule which states that the licensee shall be bound by all the rules which have been passed under the abkari Act and which may hereafter be made under the Act or in any law relating to abkari revenue which may hereafter be made. We do not agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the decision of this court in Food Corpn. of India v. State of Haryana supports his contention. In that case this Court had held that the law declared by the High Court had been accepted by the State of Haryana and, therefore, it could not impose any sales tax and therefore, could not consequently demand any interest. In the present case, however, even though some of the licensees had succeeded before the High Court, it is the State which came up before this Court and the decision of the High Court was reversed. Unlike the Food Corpn. of India case the State did not accept the finding of the High Court and therefore the decision in Food Corpn. of India case will be of no assistance to the petitioners. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
