Back
1980 Supreme(AP) 356
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY
Sun Shine Bar, Vijayanagaram - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of A.P.Excise, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-30-80
The duty imposed under Section 16(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, is payable only at the time of removal of the intoxicant from the distillery, brewery, warehouse, or other established place of storage. Once the duty is paid, no further duty can be levied on the stocks held by the retailers.
Headnote:
EXCISE DUTY - BEER - DIFFERENTIAL DUTY ON STOCKS HELD BY RETAILERS - NOT LEVIABLE - ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968, SECTION 16(3).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, wholesale and retail sellers of liquor including beer, challenged the demand for differential excise duty of Rs. 0.74 ps. per bulk liter of beer on the stocks held by them as on 30-9-1979, imposed by the respondents under the guise of a telegraphic order issued by the Director of Distilleries and Breweries.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that once the duty on the beer was paid at the rate of Rs. 1.26 ps. at the time of its removal from the bonded warehouse, no further duty could be collected when the beer was held by the petitioners in their licensed premises.
Issues: Whether the differential excise duty of Rs. 0.74 ps. per bulk liter of beer on the stocks held by the petitioners as on 30-9-1979 was leviable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 16(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and the relevant rules framed thereunder, and held that the duty imposed under the Act was payable only at the time of removal of the intoxicant from the distillery, brewery, warehouse, or other established place of storage. Once the duty was paid, no further duty could be levied on the stocks held by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned telegram issued by the Director of Distilleries and Breweries and the memo issued by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Vijayanagaram, demanding the differential excise duty.
( 1 ) PETITIONERS herein complain that the respondents are trying to collect from them the differential excise duty of Rs. 0-74 ps. per bulk liter of beer on the stocks field by them as on 30-9-1979. They in particular complain the telegraphic order given by the Director of Distilleries and Breweries, 2nd respondent herein, under the guise of which the authority concerned is purporting to collect the said differential from them.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this Writ Petition in brief are:
( 3 ) THE petitioners are whole-sellers/retail-sellers of liquor including beer. The first petitioner holds FL-23 licence, the second petitioner holds fl-16 licence and the rest of the petitioners hold FL-24 licences. They purchase the liquor including beer from various breweries and bonded ware-houses in the State, which is duty paid and unless and until the duly imposed is paid, no intexicant from any brewery or warehouse can be removed and vend the same either in retail or wholesale. The Government in G. 0. Ms. No. 1025, Revenue, Dated 30th September 1968, imposed excise duty on beer at the rate of Rs. 1-26 ps. per bulk liter.
( 4 ) BY Memorandum No. 1982/t2/79-9, Revenue (T), dated 10th september, 1979, an amendment was issued to G. 0. Ms. No. 1025 and the duty on beer was raised from Rs. 1-26 ps. to Rs. 2/- with effect from 1-10-1979. In pursuance of the same, the fourth respondent issued a memo dated 8-10-1979 asking the petitioners to remit enhanced duty on beer at Rs. 0-74 ps. on the stocks held by them as on 30-9-1s79 and produce challans forthwith. Thereupon, it was represented to the 4th respondent thet, since the duty on the stock held on 30-9-1979 has already been paid, the same could not be exigible to duty once again and therefore, requested him to withdraw the said memo. It was, however, threatened that unless the demand is complied with, the licences will be liable to be cancelled or suspended. Under those circumstances, the petitioners had to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and prayed for a direction to the respondents not to collect enhanced excise duty on beer on the stocks held by them as on 30-9-1979 in pursuance of the telegraphic orders issued by the 2nd respondent.
( 5 ) SINCE the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader centered round the provisions enacted in Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Andhra Pradese Excise act, the said provision may be noticed. Section 16 (3) reads thus:"without the banction of the Government, no person shall remove any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery, warehouse, or other place of storage established, continued or licensed under this Act, unless the duty, if any, imposed under this Act has been paid".
( 6 ) THE actual purport of Subjection (3) of Section 16 is that no intoxicant shall be removed from any distillery, brewery, warehouse or other place of storage, unless the duty imposed has been paid. Admittedly the duty has been paid at Rs. 1-26 ps. at a time when the beer was removad from the bonded warehouse and the petitioners got the delivery after purchasing the same. Rule 10 of the AP. Indian Liquor (Storage and bond) rules 1969; so also Rule 29 (1) and (2) of the AP. Brewery Rules, 1970 (end clue to the fact that liquor, unless the duty is paid, cannot be removed either from the brewery or from the bonded warehouse.
( 7 ) RULE 10 of the A. P. Indian Liquor (storage in Bond) Rules, 1969, reads:"10. Indian Liquor not to be removed except under a pass:- (1) No Indian liquor stored in the bonded warehouse shall be removed, or transferred from the bonded warehouse to any other place, except under a pass granted in this behalf and unless the duty, if any, levied under the provisions of the Act has been paid". (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . Rule 29 (2) of the A. P. Brewery Rules reads:"29 (2) The duly on baer shall become due immediately affer the account of brewing has been taken ay the I
